The issue as to whether the DNA Test can be allowed in case which involves demand for direction from the court to permit DNA Test of the first respondent for the purpose of determining parentage of the person to prove the allegation of the petitioners that the respondent is not the biological son of the deceased father, who was the owner of the properties in dispute was decided upon by the Tripura High Court bench consisting of Justice T Amarnath Goud in the matters of Nirmal Ghosh and Ors. vs. Partha Ghosh and Ors. CRP 14 of 2020 decided on 4.1.2022.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner strongly believe that respondent is not the son of their deceased father who had executed a will.The respondent has been selling certain properties on the pretext of the said will, which are the subject matter of dispute in the trial.This led them to the demand for the DNA test to ascertain if the respondent is genuinely the son of the deceased father, Kshitish Ghosh and their mother, Fulu Rani Ghosh.
The petitioners contended that during the trial, the respondent transferred the disputed properties to third parties and if they were successful before the court, nothing would be left to the plaintiffs, who were brothers. They placed reliance on supreme courts decision in Goutam Kundu v. W.B. State and Anr., that DNA Test was required to prove the authenticity of the parents.
The Tripura High Court held unless there is an objection in the birth certificates and school records showing that Kshitish Ghosh is not the father of the first defendant, Partha Ghosh, there can be no direction to test the first defendant’s DNA.The petitioner should choose to challenge these documents before a plea for DNA testing could be accepted. The Court also refused to make any observations on the facts of the dispute and accordingly held that it was not its task to delve into the disputed facts when appropriate remedies were available to the parties. Concern expressed by petitioners, who are siblings of the deceased, that their biological siblings have vested rights and interests in their properties as legal heirs and that nothing is left if the first respondent and his spouse transfer the property and create a third party interest.The Court afforded the plaintiff the freedom to bring to the relevant court applications seeking appropriate remedies in support of its claims to protect the disputed property.
Judgement reviewed by Bhaswati Goldar