IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1405 OF 2011 Between: Jampani Gopichand, minor rep. by Mother and natural guardian Jampani Revathi …Petitioner A n d Gummadi Venkatiah Chowdary @ Sivaramakrishnaiah ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1405 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order 04.02.2011 in I.A.No.830 of 2010 in O.S.No.41 of 2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to receive the photostat copy of the Will dated 03.05.2004 filed along with written statement as secondary evidence, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit for declaration that the Will dated 03.05.2004 is true, valid and the last testament of deceased B.Venkayamma. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement contesting the suit on the ground that the Will dated 03.05.2004 was not the last Will and testament and it was fabricated and Venkayamma executed her last Will and testament on 31.05.2002. The question as to which of the Wills propounded by the parties is true, is a matter to be considered on evidence that may be adduced during the course of trial. The burden lies on the plaintiff to establish that the Will dated 03.05.2004 was true, valid and the last testament of B.Venkayamma before can seek the relief of declaration prayed for. According to the petitioner/defendant, when his grandfather visited the plaintiff’s house, the plaintiff furnished a copy of the Will dated 03.05.2004 and the same is not tallying with the Will now propounded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has categorically denied that any such copy of the Will dated 03.05.2004 was ever handed over to the grandfather of the defendant. The question as to whether or not there was any other Will of the same date of 03.05.2004 executed by B.Venkayamma of which the zerox copy was taken and allegedly furnished to the defendant’s grandfather by the plaintiff, is wholly irrelevant. When the original Will dated 03.05.2004 propounded by the plaintiff is filed into the Court, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the truth of execution and due attestation of the said original Will propounded by him. The xerox copy of another Will of the same date which is said to be not tallying with the Will propounded by the plaintiff, is of no relevance and does not have any bearing. 4. Under those circumstances, the impugned order, dismissing the application and refusing permission for marking the photostat copy of the Will dated 03.05.2004 filed along with the written statement as secondary evidence, does not call for any interference. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd December, 2011 Lrkm.