::1:: APHC010602452025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] WEDNESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3118/2025 Between: 1. GUTTA VENKATESWARA RAO,, S/O. LATE CHITTARANJANDAS, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. CHATAPARRU VILLAGE, ELURU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KONERU AMARAVANI, W/o. Atchuta Kumar, aged about 50 years, Occ Private Employee R/o. Satrampadu Village, Pedapadu Mandal, Eluru District, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT ::2:: The Court made the following ORDER: 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.829 of 2025 in O.S.No.57 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru. 2. The petitioner/defendant filed this application seeking to receive photocopies of two wills dated 04.09.2025 and 18.09.2025, the FIR, and the certified copy of the deposition in C.C.No.356 of 2017. 3. The court below, after considering the matter, dismissed the petition vide orders dated 26.09.2025 on the ground that the first three documents sought by the petitioner, including two wills and the FIR, were mere photocopies, which cannot be received as evidence by the Court. Further, the petitioner relied on Document No.4, the deposition of the respondent/plaintiff, to claim that the respondent took away the original unregistered will dated 18.09.2005; however, the deposition actually referred to an unregistered will dated 15.09.2005, creating a discrepancy that undermined its relevance. Additionally, the deposition of a living person is not admissible as substantive evidence and may only be used for contradiction under Section 145 or corroboration under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the cross- examination of the plaintiff, according to which the plaintiff was present, ::3:: and based on the wills dated 15.09.2005 and 18.09.2005, an expert opinion was sought. On perusal of the same, the observations made by the Additional District Judge are supported by the record. As per the averments made by the petitioner, both documents were with the plaintiff. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagmail Singh & Another v. Karamjit Singh & Others1, wherein it is held secondary evidence of a will may only be admitted if there is a credible factual foundation to show that the original was in possession of a third party, such as revenue authorities, and that despite notice under Section 66, the original was not produced. Merely marking a document as an exhibit or producing a photocopy without establishing this foundation does not suffice. The principles laid down in Jagmail Singh are squarely applicable to the present case, as the petitioner seeks to rely on photocopies without proving the existence or custody of the original documents. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff opposed the existence of the will dated 18.09.2025 and the applicability of the cited principles. However, on perusal of the documents placed along with the revision petition and the observations made by this Hon’ble Court, it is evident that the documents did exist before the revenue authorities. 1 2020(4) ALD 76 (SC) ::4:: 6. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the court below to examine the documents in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders after giving both parties an opportunity of being heard. 7. With the above observations this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH Dt:19.11.2025 klk ::5:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3118 of 2025 Dt:19.11.2025 klk 246