Dismissed¶29

Dillibabu @ Dillimma v. v.Ramakrishnan and 2 Others

Madras HC3 Jul 2026A/457/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Secondary evidence; xerox/photocopy copy inadmissible without foundational proof; Sections 63 and 65 Indian Evidence Act, 1872; affidavit particulars for secondary evidence; H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam (2011) 4 SCC 240 relied on; missing original allotment order dated 17.08.2024 in favour of testator; application within Original Petition O.P.No.738 of 2022; Madras High Court; application dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

In the absence of a proper case made out for reception of secondary evidence, a xerox copy cannot be received as secondary evidence merely on request. ¶24

Dillibabu @ Dillimma Vs v.Ramakrishnan and 2 Others — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

A No. 457 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

A No. 457 of 2026 in O.P.No.738 of 2022

¶7

Dillibabu @ Dillimma D/o.Late Venkatesan, 24/62 B Block, I st Street, Ezhil Nagar, Kodungaiyur, Chennai - 600 118.

¶8

..Applicant(s)

¶9

¶10

V.Ramakrishnan and 2 Others S/o.Late Venkatesan, Old No.4, New No.8A, Pattukottai Alagiri St, Thanthai Periyar Nagar, Street No.101, Tharamani, Chennai - 600 110.

¶11

Muthulakshmi

¶12

W/o.Murugan, 27, Anna Nagar, Masapet, Arcot, Vellore - 632 503.

¶13

Komala W/o.Ravi, 24/62 B Block, I st Street, Ezhil Nagar, Kodungaiyur, Chennai - 600 118.

¶14

..Respondent(s)

¶15

Prayer : Application filed to permit the Applicant to mark the said allotment order issued in favour of the Testator dated 17/08/2024 as Secondary Evidence.

¶16

Page1 of 4

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A No. 457 of 2026

For Applicant(s):

Mr.H.Manojin

ORDER

This application has been filed to permit the Applicant to mark the said allotment order issued in favour of the Testator dated 17/08/2024 as Secondary Evidence.

¶23

The averments in support of the application are that only when the Original Petition was posted for evidence, the petitioner came to know about that the original allotment order in favour of the testator dated 17.08.2024 is missing and since it could not traced, the applicant seeks permission to file the xerox copy of the document as secondary evidence.

¶24

3.This Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought. What is admittedly sought to be received are only xerox copy. In the absence of a proper case made out for reception of secondary evidence, xerox copy cannot be received as secondary evidence merely on request. The affidavit does not set out the necessary particulars for bringing the case within section 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. A mere xerox copy of a document cannot be admitted as secondary evidence in the absence of foundational proof satisfying Sections 63

¶25

Page2 of 4

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

A No. 457 of 2026

¶28

and 65 of the Evidence Act. [H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam, (2011) 4 SCC 240] Therefore, the prayer to receive the said xerox copy as secondary evidence cannot be entertained.

¶29

4.Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. No costs.

¶30

03-07-2026

¶31

vrc

¶32

__________ Page3 of 4

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

A No. 457 of 2026