Padmavathi Vs Ramesh — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Padmavathi Vs Ramesh — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part: the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2023 in R.A.No.58/2022 (I Additional District Judge, Kalaburagi) and the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2022 in O.S.No.82/2017 (Senior Civil Judge, Jewargi) are set aside; the matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration; the Trial Court shall send the blood samples of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to the expert to secure a DNA report on whether they are born to the same parents, consider the report in accordance with law and decide the suit on its merits; adverse inference against defendant No.1 if he refuses blood samples; parties/plaintiff to appear before the Trial Court on 04.06.2025 without further notice; Trial Court to issue notice to defendant No.1; Registry to send back Trial Court records; nothing expressed on the merits; all contentions kept open; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff Padmavathi is the daughter of Sangappa and Anjanabai (and thus the sister of defendant No.1-Ramesh), her status having been disputed by defendant No.1 in the suit for partition. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court's premise that a DNA test of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 would not help establish their relationship is incorrect; the DNA-test application could not have been rejected by the Trial Court, since the test throws light on whether the plaintiff is the daughter of Sangappa and Anjanabai, defendant No.1 admittedly being their son.

Key takeaways

The First Appellate Court's observation that the DNA result is of no consequence because Sangappa and Anjanabai are deceased is incorrect; whether an opinion can be given, based on the DNA test of the plaintiff and defendant No.1, that they are the children of Sangappa and Anjanabai is a matter for the expert to opine.ratio¶21
Both the impugned judgments and decrees are to be set aside and the matter remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration after securing the DNA test report of the plaintiff and defendant No.1.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition suit (O.S.No.82/2017, Senior Civil Judge, Jewargi): plaintiff Padmavathi claimed to be the daughter of Sangappa and Anjanabai and sister of defendant No.1 Ramesh; defendant No.1 disputed her status, asserting she was the daughter of Mahadevappa and Kusumabai (Kusumabai being admitted to be Anjanabai's sister). The Trial Court rejected the plaintiff's application for a DNA test of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and dismissed the suit on the premise that her status was not established; the First Appellate Court (R.A.No.58/2022, I Addl. District Judge, Kalaburagi) likewise dismissed the appeal and the DNA application, deeming the result inconsequential as the parents were dead. The High Court (Kalaburagi Bench) held that rejection of the DNA application was unsustainable: a DNA test of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 (an admitted son of Sangappa and Anjanabai) bears on whether the plaintiff is their daughter, and whether such an opinion is possible from their DNA is for the expert to opine. Both judgments and decrees were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after securing the DNA report; blood samples of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to be sent to the expert, with adverse inference against defendant No.1 if he refuses; parties to appear on 04.06.2025; nothing expressed on the merits and all contentions kept open. Appeal allowed in part. (Anant Ramanath Hegde J., 22.04.2025.)