Karnataka High Court Orders DNA Test To Determine Sibling Relationship In Property Dispute
The Court said that a DNA test may be ordered in a partition suit where the Plaintiff’s claim hinges on proving a disputed blood relationship and other evidence is insufficient.
The Karnataka High Court has held that when the entitlement to claim a share in a property depends on proving a disputed familial relationship, the Court may direct a DNA test if other evidence is inconclusive. The Court remanded a 1997 partition suit for fresh trial and ordered avuncular DNA profiling of the parties.
A Single Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh observed, “The issue involved between the parties is not in respect of right of privacy and only with respect to test of siblings as well as consideration of legitimate claim of the plaintiff for a share in the property.”
The Court added, “The truth or otherwise of the said relationship is very essential in order to decide the partition suit and whether the plaintiff is entitled for any share and in order to decide the right of the parties, it is appropriate to conduct the DNA test.”
Advocate Nagaraj Damodar appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Prakash M.H. represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellant filed a suit for partition and separate possession in 1997, claiming a one-third share in a residential property. She contended that the property was allotted to her mother, who constructed three portions, two for her children and one for her granddaughter. It was the Appellant’s case that she and the deceased Respondent No.1, through whom Respondents 1(b) and 1(c) claim, were siblings and children of the same parents.
The Respondents denied any such relationship. It was contended that Respondent No.1 was the son of a different father and that the Appellant had no familial connection to them. They also asserted that the property was not joint family property and was bequeathed by their mother under a will to another family member.
The Trial Court, by way of a judgment and decree in 2007, dismissed the suit, holding that the Appellant had failed to prove either the relationship or the joint family character of the property. Aggrieved, the Appellant preferred an appeal and filed two applications, one seeking amendment of the plaint to state that the will had not been acted upon, and another seeking avuncular DNA testing to prove the sibling relationship between the Appellant and the deceased through Respondent 1(b).
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted that the Trial Court had not adequately examined the material evidence and that the relationship between the Appellant and the deceased was central to the dispute. It held that the matter warranted reconsideration in light of the DNA test application.
The Court observed, “The Trial Court has not given any definite finding that both of them are distinct and only relies upon the documents produced by the defendant and comes to such a conclusion… When such being the case, the matter requires to be re-considered… and also DNA test will be helpful to the Court to determine the issue involved between the parties.”
The Bench added, “This Court also comes to the conclusion that DNA test is not only a substantive piece of evidence and the said DNA test will comes to the aid of the petitioner in order to prove the claim and also submission of the appellant’s counsel is very clear that if DNA test evidence goes against the appellant they are out of Court.”
On the Respondents’ argument that such a direction would violate the right to privacy, the Court clarified, “…I do not find any force in the contention of the counsel appearing for the respondent that there cannot be any order of DNA test and the reasons assigned in the application filed by the appellant is very clear only for the purpose of determining the relationship as well as legitimate claim going to take DNA test.”
The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court Narayan Dutt Tiwari v. Rohit Shekhar (2012), and reiterated that DNA testing can be directed where it is essential to resolve disputes about legitimacy or parentage, particularly when documentary or oral evidence is insufficient and the result has a direct bearing on civil rights.
On the application for amendment, the Court noted, “It is the claim of the plaintiffs that though the said Will was executed, the same was not acted upon and this Court also allowed the application to amend the plaint… and also given a finding that the said amendment will not change the very nature of the suit.”
The Bench held, “When the very entitlement to the share is questioned in the suit and when the claim is made that she is entitled to the share as the sister and it requires to be adjudicated in detail and not deciding the issue in detail is nothing but miscarriage of justice.”
Consequently, the Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, and It allowed the Appellant to amend the plaint to state that the Will was not acted upon. The Bench further permitted avuncular DNA testing between the Appellant, Respondent 2, and Respondent 1(b), the son of the deceased, through whom the Respondents claimed.
The matter was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration, with both parties being granted liberty to lead additional evidence. The Trial Court was directed to complete the trial within one year.
Cause Title: Smt. Jayalakshmamma v. Anjinappa & Ors. (Regular First Appeal No.2523/2007)
Appearances:
Appellant: Advocate Nagaraj Damodar
Respondents: Advocate Prakash M.H., Suman M.
