APHC010083972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 469/2025 Between: 1. BOMMAREDDY VENKATA RAMI REDDY, S/O. RAMA SUBBA REDDY, D.NO. 3-50, MALLEMPUDI VILLAGE, TADEPALLI MANDAL,GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. BOMMAREDDY RAMA SUBBA REDDY, S/O. LATE BAPIREDDY, AGRICULTURE, R/O.D.NO. 3-50, MALLEMPUDI VILLAGE, TADEPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. BOMMAREDDY UDAY BHASKAR REDDY, (DIED). 3. SMT DUGGIRALA SUJATHA, , W/O. RAVI, AGED 38 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 26-42-264, ZERO LINE, A.T.AGRAHARAM, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. SMT BHIMAVARAPU LALITHA KUMARI, W/O. LATE SAMBI REDDY, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O. KOLLIPARA VILLAGE, KOLLIPARA MANDAL, .RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS.GUNTUR DISTRICT 5. KOMMAREDDY VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O. LAKSHMA REDDY, AGED 70 YEARS, R/O. KOLLIPARA VILLAGE, KOLLIPARA MANDAL, .. .RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF.GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be 2 pleased toBeing aggrieved by the Order, Dt. 04.09.2024, passed in O.S No.318/2017 on the file of the court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Mangalgiri, Guntur District, the above named petitioner begs to prefer this memorandum of Civil Revision Petition IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.318 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, pending disposal of the main C.R.P. and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVA RAMA KRISHNA KOLLURU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DODDALA YATHINDRA DEV 2. The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner, aggrieved by the docket order dated 04.09.2024 passed in O.S.No.318 of 2017, on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri, Guntur District, refusing to mark the Will as an exhibit, has filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The petitioner herein is defendant No.3 and respondent No.5 herein is the plaintiff, while respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 in O.S.No.318 of 2017. The Suit is filed for partition and for cancellation of the sale deed dated 03.10.2016 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4. 3 3. The petitioner herein/defendant No.3, at the time of his evidence, placed a Will dated 06.06.1968, purported to have been executed by his grandfather, to mark the same as an exhibit, and the Court raised an objection that the original laminated copy is not legible and questioned how a clear photocopy could be obtained from an illegible document. 4. The case of the petitioner herein is that, by virtue of the Will, the subject property devolved upon him, and he in turn sold it under a registered sale deed dated 03.10.2016. The plaintiff, while seeking partition, also sought for cancellation of the registered sale deed executed by the petitioner in favor of 4th defendant. In the said circumstances, to prove that the subject property of the suit is devolved upon the petitioner/defendant No.3, he tried to mark the Will, which is a laminated one. The Court below refused to mark the same as it is illegible. Impugning the said proceedings dated 04.09.2024, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 5. Heard Sri K. Sivarama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Doddala Yathindra Dev, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent No.5 herein. 6. While reiterating the grounds of revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below failed to see that the original Will dated 06.06.1968 has been filed, as the document is an old one and has been laminated, and along with the laminated original Will, a photocopy has also been enclosed. The Court below erroneously objected to mark the said 4 document on the ground that the original Will is not legible and questioned how a clear and legible photocopy could have been filed. In fact, the photocopy was taken when the document (original Will) was in a legible condition. Even otherwise, the trial Court cannot refuse the marking of the said document, as the proof and relevancy would always arise during the course of trial and at the time of pronouncement of judgment. If the said document is not marked and the defendant/petitioner herein is not allowed to prove all the contents of the document, his rights will be affected. The law is well settled that any document which is marked is always subject to proof and relevancy. The Court below also failed to see the purport of Sections 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. If the said document is not received and marked, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship, and further no prejudice will be caused to the respondent if it is received and marked. As such, he prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that when the document itself is not legible, how the photocopy could be taken was not explained by the petitioner, and in the said circumstances, the Court below has rightly refused to mark the said document. The petitioner has also not raised any valid legal grounds warranting interference by this Court. However, he submits that if the Court is inclined to interfere, the marking of the document may be made subject to proof, relevancy, and proof of genuineness of both the Will and the photocopy. Accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 5 8. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the parties. 9. The case of the petitioner herein is that the suit schedule property devolved upon him based on the Will executed by his grandfather vide Will dated 06.06.1968. The subject property has been sold under a registered document in favour of defendant No.4. Respondent No.5 herein, who is the plaintiff, filed a suit for partition and also for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of defendant No.4. When the petitioner tried to mark the Will dated 06.06.1968 (laminated copy) executed by his grandfather along with a photocopy of the Will, the Court below refused to mark the said document on the ground that the same is not legible and also questioned as to how a clear and legible photocopy of an illegible document has been filed. The Court below cannot refuse to mark the said document and decide the relevancy of the document at the stage of marking. The said observation is erroneous. 10. It is well settled that a Will has to be proved strictly in accordance with law by leading proper and cogent evidence, including proof of its execution and contents. The burden of proving the Will lies entirely on the petitioner. The petitioner is also required to explain and establish the circumstances under which the photocopy of the Will was taken and to satisfy the Court that the photocopy truly represents the contents of the original document. The respondent No.5/plaintiff is entitled to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the petitioner in this regard and to raise all permissible objections relating 6 to the genuineness, execution, and contents of the Will as well as the photocopy. The trial Court is required to consider and evaluate the entire evidence placed on record at the stage of final adjudication. The petitioner is also at liberty to establish the legibility and condition of the original Will during the course of trial. All objections regarding proof and relevancy are kept open to be decided at the time of final judgment. The petitioner must satisfy the requirements of Sections 63 and 98 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The Trial Court is directed to receive and mark the copy of the Will and translated copy dated 06.06.1968; however, the same shall be subject to relevancy and proof. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. This Court is inclined to appreciate the efforts made by Sri P. Rajasekhar and Sri S. Rajan, learned counsel, in assisting this Court. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 22nd JANUARY, 2026 MH/JLSR 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 121 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 469 of 2025 Date: 22nd JANUARY, 2026 MH/JLSR