APHC010446442023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2166 OF 2023 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Revision Petition aggrieved by the decree and Order dt 02-08-2023 in I.A.No. 235 of 2023 IN O.S.No.4 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Machilipatnam, Krishna District. Between: Sannala Brahamji Rao, S/olate Ratna Rao, aged about 46 Years,R/o Near police Station,Bantumilli, Krishna District. ...Petitioner/Respondant No. 15/Defendant No. 15 AND 1. Sujnanam Radha Bai, (Died) 2. Paruchuri Revathi, (Died) 3. Dawluri Sucharita, W/o.Sri Rama Krishna, Aged about R/o.Madinaguda, Hyderabad. 56 years 4. Paruchuri Upendranth, S/o.Radha Krishna aged about 64 years, R/o.D.No.21-409, Bhaskarapuram, Machilpatnam, Krishna District. 5. Paruchuri Punya Sindhuri, W/o.Sri Ramula Manjunadh, D/o.Upendranath, aged about 34 years, R/o.D.No.21-409, Bhaskarapuram, Machilpatnam, Krishna District. ...Respondants/Petitioners/Plaintiffs 6. Sannala Rates Rao, (Died) 7. Chillimunta Ganapathi, S/o.Veeraswamy aged about 45 years R/o.Bantumilli, Machilipatnam. 8. Mothukuri Veeramma, (Died) 9. Seelam Kusuma Kumari, W/o.Seshu Babu, aged about 70 years R/o.Guntur, Guntur District. 10. Gajula Indira Devi, (Died) 11. Merugu Veena Devi, W/o.Rama Koteswara Rao, aged about 65 years, R/o.Reapalle, Guntur District. 12. Maralasetty Sarojini Devi, W/o.Panduranga Dharma Rao, aged about 60 years, R/o.Batchupet, Machilipatnam. 13. Baireddi Nirmala Devi, W/o.Nanchariah, aged about 62 years R/o.Malakapatnam, Machilipatnam. 14. Sugnanam Ananta Padmanabha Rao, S/o.Hanumantha Rao aged about 76 years, R/o.Bhaskarapuram, Machilipatnam. 15. Sugnanam Vijaya Venkata Brahma Ramana Babu, S/o.Ananta Padmanabha Rao, aged about 37 years, R/o.Bhaskarapuram, Machilipatnam. 16. Sugnanam Mahendra (g Mahesh Babu, S/o.Ananta Padmanabha Rao, aged about 35 years, R/o.R/o.Bhaskarapuram, Machilipatnam. 17. Sugnanam Savitri Madhavi, D/o.Ananta Padmanabha Rao, aged about 33 years, R/o.Bhaskarapuram, Machilipatnam. Sugnanam Dhana Lakshmi Mythili, D/o.Ananta Padmanabha Rao, aged about 31 years, R/o.R/o.Bhaskarapuram, Machilipatnam. Sannala Krishna Veni, W/o.late Ratna Rao, aged about 60 R/o.Near Police Sation, Bantumilli, Krishna District. Sannala Ravindranath, S/o.late Ratna Rao, aged about 44 years. Doctor of Mahaveera Hospital, No. 17, Near Ayyappa Temple, Millers Road, Santha Nagar, Bangalore, Karnataka State. Maddala Vijayalakshmi, W/o.Venkata Swamy Naidu, aged about 40 years, H.No.903, Obhiman gardens, 0pp. City Hospital, Mallikatta Kadri, Mangalore, Karnataka State. 18. 19. years 20. 21. ...Respondents/defendant 1 to 14 and 16,17 (Respondents No. 6 to 21 are not necessary parties in the above Revision Petition) lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.4 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Machilipatnam, Krishna District, pending disposal of the above Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondents :SRI NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA The Court made the following Order; IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE APHC010446442023 [3459] PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2166 OF 2n73 Between: Sannala Brahamji Rao, S/o.Late Ratna Rao, Aged about 46 years, R/o.Near Police Station, Bantumilli, Krishna District. Petitioner AND 1. Sujnanam Radha Bai (Died) 2. Paruchuri Revathi (Died) 3. Dawluri Sucharita, W/o.Sri Rama Krishna, Aged about 56 years, R/o.Madinaguda, Hyderabad. 4. Paruchuri Upendranth, S/o.Radha Krishna, Aged about 64 years, R/o.D.No.21-409, Bhaskarapuram, Mactiilpatnam, Krishna District. 5. Paruchuri Punya Sindhuri, W/o.Sri Ramula Manjunadh, D/o.Upendranath, Aged about 34 years, R/o.D.No.21-409, Bhaskarapuram, Machilpatnam, Krishna District. 6. Sannala Ratna Rao (Died) 7. Chillimunta Ganapathi, S/o.Veeraswamy, Aged about 45 years, R/o.Bantumilli, Machilipatnam. 8. Mothukuri Veeramma (Died) 9. Seelam Kusuma Kumari, W/o.Seshu Babu, Aged about 70 years, R/o.Guntur, Guntur District. 2 JS,J CRP No.2166/2023 10. Gajula Indira Devi (Died) 11. Merugu Veena Devi, W/o.Rama Koteswara Rao, Aged about 65 years, R/o.Reapalle, Guntur District. 12. Maralasetty Sarojini Devi, W/o.Panduranga Dharma Rao, Aged about 60 years, R/o.Batchupet, Machilipatnam. 13. Baireddi Nirmala Devi, W/o.Nanchariah, Aged about 62 years, R/o.Malakapatnam, Machilipatnam. 14. Sugnanam Ananta Padmanabha Rao, S/o.Hanumantha Rao, aged about 76 years, R/o.Bhaskarapuram, Machilipatnam. 15. Sugnanam Vijaya Venkata Brahma Ramana Babu, S/o.Ananta Padmanabha Rao, Aged about 37 years, R/o.Bhaskarapuram, Machilipatnam. 16. Sugnanam Mahendra @ Mahesh Babu, S/o.Ananta Padmanabha Rao, Aged about 35 years, R/o.Bhaskarapuram, Machilipatnam. 17. Sugnanam Savitri Madhavi, D/o.Ananta Padmanabha Rao, Aged about 33 years, R/o.Bhaskarapuram, Machilipatnam. 18. Sugnanam Dhana Lakshmi Mythili, D/o.Ananta Padmanabha Rao, Aged about 31 years, R/o.Bhaskarapuram, Machilipatnam. 19. Sannala Krishna Veni, W/o.late Ratna Rao, Aged about 60 years, R/o.Near Police Sation, Bantumilli, Krishna District. 20. Sannala Ravindranath, S/o.late Ratna Rao, Aged about 44 years. Doctor of Mahaveera Hospital, No. 17, Near Ayyappa Temple, Millers Road, Santha Nagar, Bangalore, Karnataka State. 21. Maddala Vijayalakshmi, W/o.Venkata Swamy Naidu 3 JS,J CRP No.2166/2023 Aged about 40 years, H.No.903, Obhiman gardens, 0pp. City Hospital Mallikatta Kadri, Mangalore, Karnataka State. Respondents Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to beg to present the above Revision Petition in this Hon'ble Court aggrieved by the decree and 02.08.2023 in I.A.No.235 of 2023 in O.S.No.4 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Machilipatnam, Krishna District. praying Order dt. lA No.1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.4 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, pending disposal of the above Revision Petition in this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the petitioner ; Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty Counsel for the respondents : Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva The Court made the following; 4 JS,J CRP No.2166/2023 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/15*'' defendant, challenging the order, dated 02.08.2023, passed in I.A. No.235 of 2023 in O.S.No.4 of 2021 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District (for short, ‘the trial Court’) whereby the Application filed under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Act of 1872’) R/w. Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’), seeking to direct the petitioner herein to produce the registered original Will, dated 26.07.1990, executed by Smt. Sannala Punyavathamma, failing which, the photostat copy of the original Will, dated 26.07.1990, may be permitted as secondary evidence, was allowed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. The case of the petitioner/1 O**' defendant, in brief, is that the plaintiffs filed O.S. No.4 of 2001 for a declaration against the respondents/defendants, including the petitioner, based on the Will dated 26.07.1990. Smt. Sannala Punyavathamma executed a will deed in favor of the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 8. The 1 petitioner died while the suit was pending, and her L.Rs were impleaded as respondent Nos.9 to 13. Additionally, the 1 respondent, who was the brother of the deceased viz., Sannala Ratna Rao, also died, and his legal representatives were impleaded as respondent Nos. 14 to 17. 3. St St 5 JS.J CRP No.2166/2023 4. The trial Court allowed the Application by directing the petitioners to take steps to produce the relevant register of the Sub- Registrar's Office, Machilipatnam, where the original signatures of the attestors and scribe were available. If the relevant register was not available in the Sub-Registrar’s Office, then the petitioners/plaintiffs were permitted to receive a Photostat copy of the will as secondary evidence, as per Section 66 of the Act of 1872. Aggrieved by the order, dated 02.08.2023, the 15*^ defendant filed this Civil Revision Petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner/1 defendant argues that the plaintiffs contends that Sannala Punyavathamma used to reside with the 1®‘ defendant, and the original will is in the custody of the 1®* defendant. After his death, it is with defendants Nos.14 to 17. There are no averments in the plaint that Smt. Sannala Punyavathamma gave a photostat copy of the will to the 3'^^ plaintiff. When no foundation is laid to prove the original will was lost, the party cannot be allowed to lead secondary evidence. 5. th 6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner/15 defendant and the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs and perused the material available on record. 7. During the trial, Ex.A-1, the registration extract of the registered will, dated 26.07.1990, was marked by PW.1. Since the attestor of the original will had died, PW.2, who is the son of the attestor, testified by identifying his father's signature; the petitioners/plaintiffs sought to confront the signature of the attestor 6 JS,J CRP No.2166/2023 on the will, which the petitioner/1 S'" defendant objected to during cross-examination. 8. An application under Section 66 of the Act of 1872, read with Section 151 of the CPC was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. Section 66 of Act of 1872 deals with the rules regarding notice to produce documents. While Section 151 of the CPC grants inherent powers to the Court to do justice when read together these two sections can be interpreted to mean that even if a party fails to provide proper notice to produce a document under Section 66 of the Act of 1872, the Court under its inherent power under Section 151 of CPC can still allow secondary evidence to be presented, if it is necessary to meet the ends of justice. 9. The learned counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs argues that the registration extract does not bear the signatures of the attestor the scribe. Since the original will is not in the custody of the petitioners/plaintiffs, one of the attestor's son was examined as PW.2, who identified the signature of his father. While examining PW.2 or cross respondents/defendants objected to the confrontation with the signature of their deceased father photocopy of the will. on a 10. The trial Court, after considering the submissions from both parties, allowed the application by instructing petitioners/plaintiffs to take initial steps to produce the relevant registers from the sub registrar's office in Machilipatnam, where the the original signatures of the attestors and scribe are available. If the 7 JS,J CRP No.2166/2023 document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under sections 45 and 47 of the Act of 1872, the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the hand writing of the person concerned are made relevant. Section 68 of the Act of 1872 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on a document in a court of law. The decision of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge to produce the relevant register from Sub-Registrar’s office is to verify the signature from the original records. Section 45 of the Act of 1872 relates to in the context of proving document, particularly when the original document is not available or if the document is executed by someone. Section 66 of the Act of 1872 outlines the procedure for giving notice to other party to produce document which is a crucial step when relying on secondary evidence of that document. 11. In Jagmail Singh and another v. Karamjit Singh and others\ The Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows at Para No.11; 12. “11. A perusal of Section 65 makes it clear that secondary evidence may be given with regard to existence, condition or the contents of a document when the original is shown or (2020) 5 see 178 8 JS,J CRP No.2166/2023 appears to be in possession or power against whom the document is sought to be produced, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after notice mentioned in Section 66 such person does not produce it. It is a settled position of law that for secondary evidence to be admitted foundational evidence has to be given being the reasons as to why the original evidence has not been furnished.” In Rakesh Mohindra v. Anita Beri and others^, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows at Para No. 15: 13. “15. The preconditions for leading secondary evidence are that such original documents could not be produced by the party relying upon such documents in spite of best efforts, unable to produce the same which is beyond their control. The party sought to produce secondary evidence must establish for the non-production of primary evidence. Unless, it is established that the original document is lost or destroyed or is being deliberately withheld by the party in respect of that document sought to be used, secondary evidence in respect of that document cannot be accepted.” Since in the present case, the documents are relevant for deciding the real controversy between the parties, as the original will was not produced by the petitioner/15*^defendant, in view of this fact, the trial Court has allowed the Application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs by directing them to produce the relevant register of Sub-Registrar Office, Machilipatnam to ascertain the original signatures of attestors and scribe. In the absence of relevant Register, the petitioners/plaintiffs were permitted to receive the photostat copy of the Will as secondary evidence. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the photostat copy of the Will, dated 14. ^2015 see OnLine Se 1149 9 JS,J CRP No.2166/2023 26.07.1990. The registration extract of the will was marked as Ex.A-1. The scribe of the Will dated 26.07.1990 had died. The son of the Attestor has admitted the signature on the photostat copy of the Will as that of his father. The defendants took objection for confronting the signature of the father of PW.2. It is therefore necessary to direct the petitioners/plaintiffs to take initial steps for production of original records to verify the signatures of the Scribe on the original will. The learned trial Court Judge has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order. A bare perusal of the impugned order, dated 02.08.2023, reveals that the learned trial Court Judge has given cogent reasons in allowing the Application and thus the impugned order cannot be said to have been passed illegally or irregularly. *N, / The discretion exercised by the learned trial Court Judge in allowing the Application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs is just and proper and does not require any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the impugned order, dated 02.08.2023, passed by the learned trial Court Judge cannot be said to have been suffering from basic infirmity and illegality and the same does not require any interference by this Court. 15. 16. In light of the aforementioned observations, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition has no merit and is subject to dismissal. 17. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 10 JS,J CRP No.2166/2023 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// // SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Additional Civil Judge,(Senior Division) Machilipatnam District. 2. One CC to Sri. Sai Gangadhar Chamarty Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Narasimha Rao Gudiseva Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra 5. Two CD Copies Krishna Pradesh. VNA I , ■ HIGH COURT DATED; 18/07/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 2166 OF 2023 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS