- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sri K. Narayanappa v. Sri. Krishnappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18THDAY OF DECEMBER, 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.42276/2015(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. K NARAYANAPPA
S/O MUNIYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/O DEVARABEESANAHALLI
BELLANDURU POST
VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
2. SRI. JAYAMMA
D/O MUNIYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/O DEVARABEESANAHALLI
BELLANDURU POST
VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
3. SRI. MUNIVENKATAMMA
D/O MUNIYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/O DEVARABEESANAHALLI
BELLANDURU POST
VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
4. SRI. K NARAYANASWAMY
S/O MUNIYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
1
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/O DEVARABEESANAHALLI
BELLANDURU POST
VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
5. SMT. GOWRAMMA
D/O MUNIYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/O DEVARABEESANAHALLI
BELLANDURU POST
VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
6. SMT. K MUNILAKSHMANA
S/O MUNIYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/O DEVARABEESANAHALLI
BELLANDURU POST
VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
7. SMT. LALITHA
D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/O DEVARABEESANAHALLI
BELLANDURU POST
VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI:VARA PRASAD K, ADV)
AND:
1. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/O DEVARABEESANAHALLI
2
BELLANDURU POST
VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
(BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT)
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGIONAL OFFICE, PLOT NO.488/B
14THCROSS, II STAGE
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, 3RDBLOCK
4THSTAGE, K.I.A.D.B. COMPLEX
BANGALORE - 560 058
3. THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE
4. M/S. ADARSHA PRIME PROJECT PVT. LTD.,
VITTAL MALLYA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI. JAYASHANKAR
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2015 PASSED BY
LEARNED II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ON I.A.NO.26
IN O.S.NO.2572/2005 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION BY
GRANTING THE RELIEF AS SOUGHT THEREIN AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
O R D E R
Heard Sri.K Vara Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners.
2. Application filed by the plaintiffs in OS No.2572/2005 under Section 75(e) read with Order 26 Rule 10A of CPC and Section 45 of the Evidence Act, seeking for a direction to the first defendant Sri.Krishnappa, S/o Rayappa to make himself available for DNA test for the purpose of determining the relationship and paternity of one Sri Rayappa with the plaintiffs and first defendant, having been dismissed is called in question. Petitioners are claiming share in the suit schedule property by filing the suit OS No.2572/2005 and on account of relationship having been denied by the first defendant, plaintiffs sought for a direction from the Court that first defendant should make himself available for DNA test.
3. Section 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872 clearly indicates that any person born during the continuance of a valid marriage between a woman and a man or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, if the woman is unmarried during this period would be a conclusive proof
4
that a person claiming to be born out of the said wedlock to be the legitimate son, unless it could be shown by rebuttal evidence that parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when the son/daughter could have been born.
4. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goutam Kundu Vs State of West Bengal and another reported in AIR 1993 SC 2295, has held that if a person born during the continuance of valid marriage between his mother and any man, would be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son born out of such marriage. In other words, presumption would arise as to the legitimacy of the child. It has also been held by the Apex Court in said judgment that 'Courts in India' cannot order blood test as a matter of course, wherever applications are made for such prayer, until and unless there is a strong prima facie case. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the following effect:
"26. From the above discussion it emerges:-
(1) that courts in India cannot order blood test as a matter of course;
(2) wherever applications are made for such prayers in order to have roving enquiry,
5
the prayer for blood test cannot be entertained;
(3) There must be a strong prima facie case in that the husband must establish non- access in order to dispel the presumption arising under Section 112 of the Evidence Act;
(4) The Court must carefully examine as to what would be the consequence of ordering the blood test whether it will have the effect of branding a child as a bastard and the mother as an unchaste woman;
(5) No one can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis.
5. Keeping the dicta laid down in the judgment referred herein above, when facts and circumstances of the case is examined, it would indicate that defendants and plaintiffs have not placed any material, prima facie to indicate relationship as such. Hence, trial Court has refused to grant the prayer sought for by the petitioners-plaintiffs. There is no error committed by the Trial Court, which calls for interference. No good grounds to entertain this writ petition.
Consequently, Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. SD/-
JUDGE
*bgn/-
6
Alert