Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
A.A. Nakkiran, J.
(Through Video Conferencing)
Palanisamy – Petitioner
versus
Vijayakumar and Ors. – Respondents
CRP(PD)No.80 of 2017 and CMP.No.429 of 2017
Decided on 8.1.2021
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. N. Manokaran, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. P. Tamilvel, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
DNA profiling can be ordered in appropriate cases where there is necessity, but at the same time, it cannot also be ordered in a routine manner and no one can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis.
Headnote:
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114 – Paternity test – DNA Profiling – Dispute arose with regard to paternity of Plaintiff for claiming his rights in suit properties – DNA profiling can be ordered in appropriate cases where there is necessity, but at the same time, it cannot also be ordered in a routine manner and no one can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis – Court must carefully examine as to what would be consequence of ordering blood test and facts and circumstances of each and every case have to be taken into consideration for ordering DNA profiling – Since paternity of Plaintiff herein is disputed by 1st Defendant herein, it becomes necessary to decide whether Plaintiff is son of 1st Defendant or not, for which DNA test is essential – In view of scientific technology, result of DNA test will assist Court in deciding whole issue properly – However, liberty is given to 1st Defendant to comply with or disregard impugned order passed by court below, requiring parties to undergo DNA test – In case, 1st Defendant accepts direction issued by court below, DNA test will determine conclusively issue of paternity in one way or other – In case, 1st Defendant declines to comply with direction issued by court below, allegation would be determined by concerned Court, by drawing a presumption of nature contemplated in Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, especially, in terms of illustration (h). (Paras 6, 8 and 13)
Result: Civil Revision Petition disposed of with observations.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 24.08.2015 made in IA.No.836 of 2015 in IA.No.583 of 2010 in OS.No.193 of 2008, by the District Munsif Court, Avinashi.
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the 1st Defendant is the Petitioner and the Respondents 1 to 3 are the Plaintiff and the Defendants 2 and 3 respectively. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession. The Plaintiff has filed IA.No.583 of 2010 for subjecting himself and the 1st Defendant to DNA test and the said application was closed on 22.10.2010, observing that after completion of the evidence on both sides, if it is not able to be established that the Plaintiff is not the son of the 1st Defendant, appropriate orders would be passed for paternity test in the said IA. The Plaintiff has filed the petition to reopen IA.No.583 of 2010 and pass necessary orders and the said petition was allowed by the impugned order. Aggrieved against the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the 1st Defendant.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner/1st Defendant has submitted that the Plaintiff cannot be allowed to collect evidence through DNA test at the fag end of the trial and that the present application has been filed with a delay of 7 years, for which no valid explanation was given and that only to harass the Plaintiff, who is very old aged person, having bad health condition, the present application has been filed. The learned counsel has relied on 2015 1 SCC 365 (Dipanwita Roy Vs. Ronobroto Roy) and CDJ 2018 APHC 756 (Medida Veeraiah Vs. Meddida Vijaya Narasimha Rao).
4. The learned counsel for the Respondent/ Plaintiff has submitted that since the suit is for partition and the 1st Defendant has disputed the paternity of the Plaintiff, it is necessary to prove that the Plaintiff is the son of the 1st Defendant, for which, DNA test is required. The learned counsel has relied on an unreported judgement dated 04.09.2017 made in CRP(PD)No.3160 of 2011, by this Court.
5. This court heard the learned counsel on either side and considered their submissions and also carefully perused the materials placed on record.
6. In this case, the Plaintiff has alleged that he is the son of the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant has denied that the Plaintiff is his son. Thus, dispute arose with regard to paternity of the Plaintiff for claiming his rights in the suit properties. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed IA.No.583 of 2010 for conducting DNA profiling for himself and the 1st Defendant to prove his paternity. The said application was closed on 22.10.2010, observing that after completion of the evidence on both sides, if it is not able to be established that the Plaintiff is not the son of the 1st Defendant, appropriate orders would be passed for paternity test in the said IA. When the matter was at the part heard stage, the Plaintiff has filed the present application to reopen IA.No.583 of 2010 and pass necessary orders and the same was allowed.
7. Now, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned order, ordering for DNA test for the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant will serve the ends of justice.
8. Time and again, it has been held in a catena of decisions of various High Courts and the Honourable Supreme Court that a DNA profiling can be ordered in appropriate cases where there is necessity, but at the same time, it cannot also be ordered in a routine manner and no one can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis. The Court must carefully examine as to what would be the consequence of ordering the blood test and the facts and circumstances of each and every case have to be taken into consideration for ordering DNA profiling.
9. In 2010 8 SCC 633 (Bhabani Prasad Jena Vs. Orissa State Commission for Women), the Honourable Supreme Court, while referring to its various decisions, has held that despite the consequences of a DNA test, this Court has concluded that i
