In a partition suit, a defendant sought a DNA test on another defendant to disprove paternity. The High Court upheld rejection, holding DNA tests cannot be ordered as a matter of course absent prima facie material showing imminent need.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35378 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. HUCHAMMA AGE 56 YEARS, W/O SHIVARAYAPPA, HOUSE WIFE, R/O UDRI VADDAGERI, KASABA HOBLI, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577413
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.B.CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ASHOK K.L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R/O GUDDEKOPPA, KUPPAGADDE HOBLI, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577413
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VASANTH KUMAR K.M., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.10;
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5, 8 AND 9; VIDE ORDER DATED 03.10.2023, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.6 AND 7 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.14/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-E ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT AND PERUSE THE ORDER DATED 26.07.2019 MADE ON I.A.12 BY THE TRIAL COURT IN O.S.NO.14/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-E ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT AND SET ASIDE THE SAME AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW I.A.12.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The defendant No.5 in O.S.No.14/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba, Shivamogga District (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') has filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 26.07.2019 passed therein by which, an application (I.A.No.XII) filed by her under Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC, was rejected.
denying the aforesaid contentions of the plaintiff and claimed that she was the daughter of Yellappa from his second wife.
sample from the defendant No.8 and compare it with the blood of power of attorney of the plaintiff, who was stated to be the nephew of the defendant No.8.
daughter of second wife of Yellappa from her first husband. Therefore, he contends that the Trial Court must have subjected the defendant No.8 for scientific examination. He submitted that the ground on which the Trial Court had rejected the application was improper in as much as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narayan Dutt Tiwari vs.
Rohit Shekar and another [(2012) 12 SCC 554] held that
"53. We may highlight that as per the dicta of the Supreme Court noticed by the learned Single Judge also, a direction for DNA testing can be issued only after the test of eminent need is satisfied. The order dated 23-12-2010 directed DNA testing of Respondent 1 only after holding the said test to be satisfied in the facts of the present case. The impugned judgment though also holding that the test of eminent need is satisfied has declined to enforce the order. It is thus not as if the order for DNA testing is made or has been made in the present case on the asking or in a routine manner for the consequence only of adverse inference to flow from non-compliance thereof. We find inherent contradiction in the Court on the one hand holding eminent need for such a test and in the same breath allowing the need to remain unsatisfied."
He therefore, contends that it was imminent that the
defendant No.8 is subjected to DNA test.
NC: 2024:KHC:10807 WP No. 35378 of 2019
Raj Gupta and others [(2022) 1 SCC 20] had held as follows:-
"20. The appellant (plaintiff) as noted earlier, has brought on record the evidence in his support which in his assessment adequately establishes his case. His suit will succeed or fall with those evidence, subject of course to the evidence adduced by the other side. When the plaintiff is unwilling to subject himself to the DNA test, forcing him to undergo one would impinge on his personal liberty and his right to privacy. Seen from this
perspective, the impugned judgment merits interference and is set aside. In consequence thereof, the order passed by the learned trial court on 28-11-2017 is restored. The suit is ordered to proceed accordingly."
He therefore, contends that the order passed by the Trial Court is just and proper.
examination. Though mere subjecting a person to DNA examination did not itself amount to violation of any fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as there is a procedure prescribed in law, yet the same cannot be ordered as a matter of course. Prima-
facie there should be sufficient evidence to justify the request for a DNA examination and in the present case, as stated by the learned counsel for defendant No.8, there were no incriminating circumstances to justify the need for a scientific examination. This apart, the request made by the defendant No.5 is to draw blood sample of the defendant No.8 and compare it with the Power of Attorney of the plaintiff, who is nephew of the defendant No.8. No attempt is made by the defendant No.5 for a direction to the Power of Attorney of the plaintiff to submit his blood sample for comparison. Therefore, the claim of the defendant No.5 that the blood sample of the defendant No.8 had to be compared with the Power of Attorney of the plaintiff would be an empty formality and would serve no purpose.
NC: 2024:KHC:10807 WP No. 35378 of 2019
entirely correct but still the rejection of the application is justified in the fact and circumstances of the case and does not warrant interference by this Court.
Hence, this petition lacks merit and is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
PMR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court rightly rejected an application under Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC for a DNA test of defendant No.8 in a partition suit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narayan Dutt Tiwari vs. Rohit Shekar and anotherReferred¶7
(2012) 12 SCC 554 · Who else cites this
Ashok Kumar vs. Raj Gupta and othersRelied on¶8
(2022) 1 SCC 20 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Huchamma
Smt. Sannamma
Sri Hucharayappa
Ramachandrappa
Smt. Shanthamma
Sri. Gajendra
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
