1. The moot question involved in this Original Petition is whether a DNA test can be permitted - as sought for by the plaintiff in a suit for partition - in proof of her paternity, so as to enable her to lay a claim over the assets left by the person, whom the plaintiff propounds as her father? The plaintiff claims to be the daughter of Sri. Kuttikrishnan Nair and her mother Madhavi Amma. She preferred an application for conducting sibling DNA test, which was allowed, vide Ext.P12 order. The same is under challenge in this Original Petition. The petitioner herein is the 1st defendant in the suit and the respondents are the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant, respectively. The essential facts to be noted are as follows:

The plaintiff Sreedevi Amma preferred the suit O.S. No. 225/2017 of the Munsiff’s Court, Pattambi, on the premise that the plaint schedule property belonged to one Kuttikrishnan Nair, who married Madhavi Amma, and that plaintiff is the daughter born in that wedlock. During the subsistence of that marriage, Kuttikrishnan Nair married another women by name Lakshmi Appissi, in which relationship, the defendants are born. The plaintiff would aver that the matrimonial tie between the Kuttikrishnan Nair and Madhavi Amma continued until the death of the former in the year 1983. Accordingly, the plaintiff claims one fourth right each for Madhavi Amma and herself, and one fourth right each to the defendants.

2. The defendants filed written statement specifically denying that Kuttikrishan Nair never married Madhavi Amma, and that the plaintiff is not the daughter of Kuttikrishnan Nair. According to the defendants, Kuttikrishnan Nair married Lakshmi Appissi and defendants were born in that wedlock. The defendants would clarify that, Kuttikrishnan Nair passed away on 30.10.1987 and not in the year 1983.

3. Ext.P3 interlocutory application I.A. No. 669/2022 - in which the impugned Ext.P12 order was passed - was preferred by the plaintiff seeking sibling DNA test to be conducted with the blood samples of the plaintiff, as also, the defendants. In the affidavit in support of the said application, the plaintiff would aver that, she is prepared to prove customary marriage between Kuttikrishnan Nair and Madhavi Amma, and that a sibling DNA test would disprove the defense contention. It was specifically averred that, the marriage between Kuttikrishnan Nair and Madhavi Amma took place 81 years back; that nobody who witnessed that marriage are now alive; that there is no direct evidence to prove the same; that plaintiff got knowledge that her father is Kuttikrishnan Nair from her mother Madhavi Amma and she remembers living with Kuttikrishnan Nair upto the age of 5 years; and therefore, in the absence of any other evidence, a DNA test is quite essential, is the contention urged.

4. The trial court deferred the said interlocutory application for consideration after evidence. PWs 1 to 5 were examined, of which PW5 is none other than the brother of the plaintiff.

5. The defendants filed counter affidavit opposing I.A. No. 669/2022 on various grounds.

6. By Ext.P10 order, the trial court allowed Ext.P3 interlocutory application, challenging which, the present petitioner preferred O.P. (C) No. 191/2023. After referring to various decisions on the question of desirability of having a DNA test, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the said Original Petition, finding inter-alia as follows:

“Thus, without expressing anything on the merits of the findings rendered in Ext P10 order, I relegate the parties back to the court below, for the purpose of deciding whether the first respondent has made out a case for the court below to hold that there was a marriage between Kuttikrishnan Nair and the mother of the first respondent, so as to enable the first respondent to be conferred with the right to have a DNA profiling test.”

7. After re-consideration, Ext.P12 order was passed, again allowing Ext.P3 I.A. for conducting sibling DNA test.

8. Heard Sr