S.C.Pandey,J. - (1.)This revision, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order dated 6-8-1999 passed by 7th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.51-A/1998, whereby the Court below has rejected an application marked as I.A.No. 22.
(2.)In that application, it was prayed by the applicant that he relied on the Will dated 2-2-1987 executed by Late Moti Bai. That Will was in her possession and after her death, the Will was not found by the applicant. It was further alleged that this document was a registered document and, therefore, the applicant filed a certified copy of the Will for the purpose of proving the Will. It was also alleged that both the attesting witnesses of the Will had expired. It was urged that the Court be pleased to grant permission to the applicant to lead secondary evidence in the shape of certified copy of the Will.
(3.)Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, this Court, is of the opinion that Sections 65 or 66 of the Evidence Act do not require an application. In fact, this application purported to be an application for examining an officer from the office of the Sub-Registrar who would depose to the effect that the certified copy of the Will was supplied from the copy kept in the office of Sub-Registrar and bring that copy for the purpose of comparison and perusal of the Court. The purpose of such examination of a witness that certified copy is the true copy from the record of Sub-Registrar and may be authenticated so by the Court. In the opinion of this Court, that is the only mode of proving a certified copy of a private document in absence of the original. It is well established that a Will is a private document within the meaning of Section 75 of the Evidence Act. It would not be covered by Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act as Sub-Registrar is not required under any law to keep public record of a Will. Neither the Registration Act nor does the Indian Succession Act require that Sub-Registrar should keep copy of the original Will with him. This conclusion is supported by decision in the case of Parsa Singh v. Smt. Parkash Kaur and others.