- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1403 WP No. 100448 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100448 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. BASAPPA S/O. BASAPPA @ MUDAKAPPA LINGAYATH, AGE ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BUDAGUMPA-583228, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL. 2. SMT. SHANKARAMMA W/O. VIRUPAXAPPA BAGAVANT, AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KOTNIKAL, TQ: SINDHANOOR, NOW R/AT KIRANI ANGADI, MANVI-584123, TQ: MANVI, DIST: RAICHUR. 3. RENUKAMMA W/O. RAMANNA BADAKAPPA KARUBARI, AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HYATI-583238, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MALAMMA W/O. BASAPPA @ MUDUKAPPA LINGAYAT, AGE ABOUT 85 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BUDAGUMPA-583228, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1403 WP No. 100448 of 2025 2. LAXMANNA S/O. BASAPPA @ MUDUKAPPA LINGAYAT, AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BUDAGUMPA-583228, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL. 3. SMT. FAKEERAMMA W/O. BALAPPA DONNER, AGE ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BUDAGUMPA-583228, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL. 4. SMT. HANAMAMMA W/O. DEVAPPA YARAGERI, AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BASAPATTANA-583235, TQ: GANGAVATHI. 5. SMT. YAMANAMMA W/O. NINGAPPA KURI, AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BUDAGUMPA-583228, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KOPPAL DATE 18-12-2024 IN O.S. NO. 76/2013 AS PER ANNEXURE-J ON THE BASIS OF LETTER DATED 12- 12-2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-C TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1403 WP No. 100448 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. In view of proposed order to be passed, the notice to respondent is dispensed with. 2. Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs : a) Quash the order passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal dated 18.12.2024 in O.S.No.76/2013 as per Annexure-J on the basis of letter dated 12.12.2024 as per Annexure-C to meet the ends of justice. b) Pass such other order or direction, this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Respondent had filed a suit in O.S.No.76 of 2013 seeking for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, relationship being disputed, hence an application has been filed for carrying out a DNA test, which came to be allowed by the trial Court on 02/06/2023 by allowing I.A.no.18. The same came to be challenged before this Court when this Court set aside the order of the trial Court by its order dated 14.07.2023 in WP.No.103578 of 2023, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1403 WP No. 100448 of 2025 matter being taken up on appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the appeal was allowed and the Hon’ble Apex Court came to a categorical conclusion that the proposed DNA test is meant to facilitate the Court to come to its conclusion with respect to paternity and it is for the Court ultimately to take a decision on this and directed the DNA test to be carried out. 4. In pursuance thereof, the blood samples of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 and defendant Nos.1 to 3 were drawn and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Deputy Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory on 12.12.2024 wrote a letter to the trial Court seeking for the biological mother’s reference sample so as to carry out the test in a proper manner. Considering the said request, the trial Court vide its order dated 18.12.2024, directed sample of plaintiff No.1 to be - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1403 WP No. 100448 of 2025 drawn and forwarded to the RFSL. It is challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The submission of Sri M.M.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner firstly is that, when the earlier application had been filed, the application was only as regards carrying out of DNA test of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and there was no request made insofar as plaintiff No.1 is concerned and therefore the present order passed by the trial Court directing furnishing of samples of plaintiff No.1 is not proper. Secondly, he submits that the Deputy Director of RFSL having sought for the samples of the mother of both plaintiffs and defendants. The defendants’ mother having expired 20 years ago, the same not being available, only the sample of the plaintiff No.1 being the mother of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 could not be drawn. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1403 WP No. 100448 of 2025 6. I have considered the objections, the contentions of the counsel for the petitioners and having perused the orders. 7. The trial Court had initially directed the DNA test to be carried out to determine the paternity and whether plaintiffs and defendants are related to each other. This order has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, though, this Court had set aside the order of the trial Court. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that carrying out of DNA test will aid the determination of paternity and would assist the Court in giving a finding. The request by the Deputy Director, RFSL is only for furnishing of a reference sample of the mother. The same being required to determine the paternity. The Deputy Director, who is an expert having opined and requested for the DNA sample of the mother. I am of the considered opinion that irrespective of whether the said sample was - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1403 WP No. 100448 of 2025 sought for in the application filed or not, the requirement of the sample of the mother’s DNA is in aid of and in furtherance of the application, which has been allowed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, an hyper technical objection that there was no prayer sought for to draw the sample of plaintiff No.1 is not sustainable. 9. Insofar as the second contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the mother of the defendants has expired long back, the Deputy Director having sought for the samples of both the mother of the plaintiff’s and defendants. Only the sample of plaintiff No.1 cannot be drawn in the absence of a sample of mother of defendants. It is also a hyper technical one. Whatever is available today would be required to be furnished to the Deputy Director, RFSL. It is for the RFSL to examine the same and submit report, which will be considered by the trial Court. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1403 WP No. 100448 of 2025 10. The Deputy Director of RFSL would also have to be informed about the mother of the defendants having expired long back and the blood sample of her not being available so as to enable the Deputy Director and the concerned Scientific Officer of the RFSL to submit an appropriate report. Hence I do not find any favour in the second objection submitted by Sri M.M.Patil, learned counsel. In that view of the matter, no grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed. 11. The Deputy Director, RFSL is directed to comply with the order of the trial Court and submit a report at the earliest. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CKK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43