Karnataka High Court Permits DNA Profiling Test In Suit Seeking Partition Of Property
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a defendant in a suit for partition of property, challenging the order passed by trial court directing him and the plaintiff to appear before the Forensic Laboratory to draw blood samples to conduct DNA profiling test to decide on their paternity relationships.A single judge bench of Justice M G Uma dismissed the petition filed...
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a defendant in a suit for partition of property, challenging the order passed by trial court directing him and the plaintiff to appear before the Forensic Laboratory to draw blood samples to conduct DNA profiling test to decide on their paternity relationships.
A single judge bench of Justice M G Uma dismissed the petition filed by Mohammed Refeeq and said “If the request for DNA profiling is not accepted, the right of the plaintiff to seek the status of the family members of the defendants, to be the son of late L.P.Ghouse Baig and Umerabi and to claim share in the suit property will be denied. On the other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner or any other defendants, if DNA profiling is conducted.”
The plaintiff S. Mohammed Fairoz Ahamed filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession. The relationship of the plaintiff with the defendants was denied by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that both his parents have already died. He does not have a Birth Certificate, nor is he having any other documents to prove the paternity as contended by him. Thus he filed an application under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Civil Code of Procedure for collection of blood samples, to have DNA profiling.
However, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff was brought up by S. Mohammed Ummar. He is the biological father of the plaintiff. But the plaintiff has taken up a stand that he belongs to the family of the defendants only for the purpose of claiming share in the suit property.
Court said “The plaintiff himself has taken the risk of seeking DNA profiling to prove his contention that he is the son of late L.P.Ghouse Baig through late Umerabi. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the right of either the plaintiff or the defendants is violated in any manner.”
Thus it held “Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to reject the claim of the applicant, as DNA profiling is the procedure scientifically approved to find out the root through DNA. It cannot be said that the defendants will be prejudiced in any manner, if such a test is conducted. If an adverse report is received after such DNA profiling, the Court will take a call on it as the same will have an effect on the fate of the suit filed by the plaintiff. In that way, such a test will reduce the controversy on questions of fact and it will help the trial court to arrive at a just decision.”
Dismissing the petition it directed the trial Court to specify all those details for the purpose of collecting the blood samples and for filing the report in accordance with law.
Appearance: Advocate S.V.Prakash, for Petitioner.
Advocate Dilraj Jude Rohit Sequeira, for R1.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 70
Case Title: Mohammed Refeeq AND S. Mohammed Fairoz Ahamed & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 52855 of 2019