The main legal point established in the judgment is the potential relevance of DNA testing in establishing familial relations, even in cases where it is challenging to ascertain paternity in the absence of parents.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 23.10.2017 made in I.A.No.471 of 2017 in O.S.No.92 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sub Court, Sankari.)

1. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.92 of 2012. The Revision Petitioners are the defendants 1, 4, 5, 7, 9 to 13. The 1st respondent, as plaintiff, filed the suit in O.S.No.92 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sankagiri, for partition and separate possession against petitioners herein and respondents 2 to 10. The said suit, after the completion of trial and when the matter is posted for arguments, at that time, the plaintiff/1st respondent had filed an application in I.A.471 of 2017 to send the 1st respondent and 2nd petitioner and 2nd respondent for DNA Test before the Dean, Government Mohan Kumara Mangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem, and to get the report from the expert.

2. The trial court, after hearing the arguments allowed the petition in I.A.No.471 of 2017. Challenging the said order, defendants 1, 4, 5, 7, 9 to 13/Revision petitioners herein filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners would submit that Marimuthu gounder and his wife Pappal viz., father and mother of Petitioners 2 to 4 and respondents 2 and 3 died and since the father of the petitioner is no more, DNA test to the 1st respondent cannot be matched with the deceased Marimuthu gounder and further the first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2012 and he has not taken any steps and after trial only, at the time of arguments, he has filed the petition only to drag on the proceedings.

4. The learned trial Judge failed to take into consideration the fact that Marimuthu gounder is no more and in the absence of Marimuthu gounder, DNA test cannot be conducted, but allowed the petition in IA.No.471 of 2017, which warrants interference of this court.

5. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners also placed reliance on the order passed by this court in CRP.PD.No.3801 of 2013 dated 21.02.2019 [Raja Vs Gopi]. This court, while considering a similar issue, dismissed the Civil Revision Petition on the ground that when the parents are no more, the paternity cannot be ascertained. In this case also, Marimuthu gounder is no more and the dispute is that the 1st respondent/plaintiff is not born to Marimuthu gounder and in these circumstances, DNA test will not be helpful to the 1st respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside and Civil Revision Petition is liable to be allowed.

6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff submits that during the cross examination, the 2nd petitioner was examined by P.W.1 and admitted during the cross examination, that they are ready to give the sample to ascertain the parentage of the 1st respondent. Therefore, based on the admission given by the 1st respondent and also relying on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, the trial court allowed the petition in I.A.No.471 of 2017 and therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial court. Therefore, there is no merit in the Civil Revision Petition and is liable to be dismissed.

7. Heard both sides and perused the records.

8. Admittedly, the 1st respondent, as Plaintiff, filed the suit for Partition against the Revision Petitioners herein and others in O.S.No.92 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sankagiri. After trial, during the arguments, the 1st respondent herein filed application in I.A.No.471 of 2017 to send the 1st respondent and 2nd petitioner and 2nd respondent for DNA test before the Dean, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem, and to get expert opinion. The suit filed by the petitioner is for partition and claiming that he is the son of Marimuthu gounder and petitioners 1 to 4 and the respondents 2 to 4 are also child