The judgment establishes that documentary evidence of biological relationships requires substantial supporting proof, especially when contradicted by medical evidence indicating impossibility.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)

The captioned appeal is filed by the defendants assailing the preliminary decree dated 04.06.2019 drawn in O.S.No.72/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal granting 1/6^th share to the plaintiffs together. The said preliminary decree is challenged before this court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial court.

3. The facts leading to the case are that;

Before we examine the issue on hand, we deem it appropriate to cull out the family tree, which is as under:

4. The plaintiffs are the widow and two sons of one Ramalingayya. In the present case, they assert that Ramalingayya is the biological son of Kubendrayya and defendant No.1. The suit for partition was filed during the lifetime of Ramalingayya, alleging that he (arrayed as defendant No.6) is the youngest son of propositus Kubendrayya. It is further averred that defendant No.6 had become addicted to vices over the preceding six months and, due to intoxication, was incapable of acting as guardian for plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2, who are minors and are under the custody of plaintiff No.3, their mother. Despite repeated requests by defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, and 5, defendant No.6 allegedly refused to give up his alcohol addiction. Plaintiff No.3 approached the defendants seeking financial support to meet the basic needs of the plaintiffs, which was declined. She also requested that defendant No.6's name be mutated in the revenue records to obtain a maintenance order from the court; this too was refused. Consequently, plaintiff No.3 demanded a legitimate share in the property on behalf of herself and the minor plaintiffs, which was rejected. This led to the filing of the present suit for partition in O.S. No.72/2015.

5. Upon receipt of summons, defendant Nos.1 to 5 entered appearance. Defendant No.1 filed a separate written statement, while defendant Nos.2 to 5 submitted a common written statement. In their pleadings, the defendants specifically denied that defendant No.6 is the biological son of Kubendrayya and defendant No.1. They contended that defendant No.6 is not related to their family and, as such, the plaintiffs do not form part of the undivided Hindu joint family with the defendants. It is asserted that the propositus Kubendrayya was in possession of the suit schedule properties, and upon his death, defendant Nos.1 to 5 succeeded to the same. Although the defendants admitted that defendant No.6 is the father of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, they denied any familial relationship with the plaintiffs.

6. Based on the rival contentions, the trial court formulated in all six issues and the plaintiffs and the defendants were called upon to lead evidence in support of their respective claim. Plaintiff No.3 examined herself as P.W.1 and one independent witness was examined as P.W.2 and produced in all 20 documents which are marked as Exs.P1 to P20. By way of rebuttal evidence, defendant No.3 was examined as D.W.1 and three independent witnesses were examined as D.Ws.2 to 4 and marked 5 documents as Exs.D1 to D5. The trial court while placing reliance on Exs.P4 and P5 which are transfer certificates issued by the primary school and higher secondary school coupled with the survivorship certificate as per Ex.P14, which was issued after the death of defendant No.6/Ramalingayya, the court proceeded to hold that the plaintiffs have succeeded in substantiating that defendant No.6/Ramalingayya is the biological son of Kubendrayya and defendant No.1. The said judgment is under challenge.

7. Heard the learned counsel for t