Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 899
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Bibly Monica - Appellant
Versus
Vir Vikram Kumar @ Jason Victor Steele And Another - Respondent
CR-2579-2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 07-02-2020
Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the Appellant; Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is the cautious approach required in ordering DNA profiling tests in property disputes, considering the potential consequences and the voluntary nature of providing blood samples for analysis.
Headnote:
DNA Profiling Test - Property Dispute - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 112; Goutam Kundu vs. State of West Bengal and another (1993) 3 SCC 418; Sharda vs. Dharmpal (2003) 4 SCC 493; Bhabani Prasad Jena vs. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women and another (2010) 8 SCC 633; Nand Lal Wasudeo Badwaik vs. Lata Nand Lal Badwaik (2014) 2 SCC 576; Dipan Wita Roy vs. Ronobroto Roy (2015) 1 SCC 365 - The court discussed the legal provisions and interpretations related to DNA profiling tests in the context of property disputes and the presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court highlighted the caution required in ordering DNA tests, the interest of the child, and the potential consequences of branding a child as illegitimate or the mother as unchaste. The court emphasized the need for a strong prima facie case to establish non-access and the voluntary nature of providing blood samples for analysis. The court also considered previous judgments where DNA tests were permitted in the interest of the child and the specific circumstances of each case.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming to be the sole surviving heir of his father's properties, while the defendant, who was allegedly adopted by the father, disputed the plaintiff's claim. The defendant sought a DNA profiling test to determine paternity, which the plaintiff initially agreed to but later contested.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the legal framework related to DNA profiling tests in property disputes and concluded that the defendant's offer to undergo the test, the plaintiff's initial agreement, and the potential evidentiary value of the test justified allowing the application. The court emphasized that the DNA profiling test is a scientific method with high accuracy and could aid in the proper adjudication of the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should permit a DNA profiling test in a property dispute to determine paternity and biological parentage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the voluntary nature of providing blood samples for analysis, the potential consequences of branding a child as illegitimate, and the evidentiary value of the DNA profiling test in the specific circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the defendant's application for a DNA profiling test and set aside the previous order disallowing the test, emphasizing that if the plaintiff did not provide his blood sample, an adverse inference could be drawn by the trial court.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The defendant-petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 17.07.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, dismissing an application filed for seeking direction to the plaintiff to submit himself for taking blood sample to conduct DNA profiling test for determining the paternity and biological father of defendant No. 1.
2. It is well known that objective of the Courts is to ensure that "truth must triumph". With this objective in mind, I now proceed to decide the present revision petition.
3. In nutshell, the facts are that Vir Vikram Kumar, the plaintiff, has filed the present suit claiming himself to be the sole surviving heir of late Sh. Paramjit Kumar, his father. Various prayers in the suit are as under:-
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the :-
I. A decree for DECLARATION to the effect that the plaintiff is absolute owner of residential house No. 108, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh, Industrial Plot No. 366, Phase 2, Industrial Area, Panchkula and all movable properties left by late Paramjit Kumar, being only son of late Paramjit Kumar and alleged Will dated 23.11.1993 and will dated 8.2.1991 alleged to have been executed by late Sh. Paramjit Kumar as well as Adoption Deed, if any, mentioned in the alleged will dated 23.11.1993 are illegal, null and void may kindly be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
II. Further a decree for permanent Injunction, restraining the defendant no.l to sell, alienate, gift, mortgage or dispose of the property i.e. House No. 108, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh, Industrial Plot No.366, Phase 2, Industrial Area, Panchkula, to any third person and further restraining the defendant no. 2 to handover the possession of entire ground floor of House No. 108, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh, to the defendant no.l may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
III. A decree for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant no. 2 to pay the license fee/amount mentioned in the License Deed dated 10.4.2006 in respect of House No. 108, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh, to defendant no. 1 may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
IV. A decree for Mandatory Injunction, directing the defendant no. 2 to make the payment of license amount/fee in respect of House No. 108, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh, to the plaintiff as mentioned in the License Deed/Agreement dated 10.4.2006 may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
V. A decree for recovery/mesne profit/damages against the defendant no. 1 for illegal use and occupation of the entire first and second floor of House No. 108, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh and Industrial Plot No. 366, Industrial Area, Phase 2, Panchkula, w.e.f 15.12.2007 to 14.12.2008 @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per month amounting to Rs. 12 lacs and future damages/mesne profits @ Rs. 1 lacs per month from the date of filing the present suit, till the final realization of the amount, as the defendant no. 1 is illegally occupying the above said properties may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
VI. A decree for possession of first and second floor House No. 108, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh and Industrial Plot No. 366, Phase 2, Industrial Area, Panchkula may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff."
4. The defendant No.l in the suit, is Bibly Monica, the petitioner herein. She has taken a stand that she is born to and brought up by Paramjit Kumar. She has further stated that she was also adopted on 23.11.1993 by executing an adoption deed. She is the sole surviving heir because late Sh. Paramjit Kumar had executed a registered Will in her favour on 23.11.1993. She has pleaded that Paramjit Kumar
