- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27965 MSA No. 15 of 2019 C/W MSA No. 116 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2019 C/W MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 116 OF 2018 IN MSA NO.15/2019: BETWEEN: 1. SRI. D. MAHESH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS SON OF LAWTE T. DASAPA R/AT D.NO.47A BELAKU NILAYA, 4TH MAIN, MARUTI TEMPLE ROAD, NEAR KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSURU-570 023. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. P.A. KULKARNI .,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RATHNAMAM AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS D/O CHIKKAMANCHAIAH @ KOIYA CLAIMING TO THE W/O LATE DASAPP DOOR NO:12, 18TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, MYSURU 570 014. 2. SMT. BHAGYA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O LATE T. DASAPPA D/O NANJAIAH R/O DOOR NO.795, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27965 MSA No. 15 of 2019 C/W MSA No. 116 of 2018 SRS COLONY, HOOTGALLI, MYSURU-570 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHENDRA G., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 384(1) OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2018 PASSED IN MA.NO.5/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED" 3 11 2012 PASSED IN P AND SC NO.44/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU. DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT. IN MSA NO.116/2018: BETWEEN: 1. SRI. D. MAHESH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O. LATE T. DASAPPA, BELAKU NILAYA, 4TH MAIN, MARUTI TEMPLE ROAD, NEAR KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL, KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSURU-570023 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. P.A. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS D/O. CHIKKAMANCHAIAH @ KOIYA, CLAIMING TO THE W/O. LATE. DASAPP, DOOR NO.12, 18TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, MYSURU-570014. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27965 MSA No. 15 of 2019 C/W MSA No. 116 of 2018 2. SMT. LALITHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS W/O. SRINIVAS, (POSTMAN SRINIVAS), DOOR NO.700, DOORA VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK-570008. 3. SMT. BHAGYA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O. LATE T. DASAPPA, D/O. NANJAIAH, R/O. DOOR NO.795, SRS COLONY, HOOTGALLI, MYSURU-570027. 4. POORNIMA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS D/O. LATE T. DASAPPA. 5. ROJA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS D/O. LATE T. DASAPPA, 6. MASTER DILIP AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS S/O. LATE T. DASAPPA, RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 ARE R/O. DOOR NO.795, SRS COLONY, HOOTGALLI, MYSURU-570027. 7. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITD (KPTCL), T.L. & S.S. DIVISION, HOOATGALLI, MYSURU-570027 BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHENDRA G., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 TO R7 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27965 MSA No. 15 of 2019 C/W MSA No. 116 of 2018 THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 384(1) OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.05.2018 PASSED IN MA NO.4/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2012 PASSED IN P AND SC 44/2006 DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.372 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent/s. 2. The petition P & SC No.58/2005 and P & SC No.44/2006 were filed before the Trial Court seeking the relief of probate wherein respondents are also contested the matter. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings, framed the point for consideration whether the petitioner in P & SC No.58/2005 proves that she is the wife of T.Dasappa and she is entitled for the service benefits of T.Dasappa and also in respect of P & SC No.44/2006 framed the point for consideration whether - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27965 MSA No. 15 of 2019 C/W MSA No. 116 of 2018 the petitioner D.Mahesh proves that he is the legal heir of deceased T.Dasappa and he is entitled for the service benefits and other benefits of late T.Dasappa and also the claim made by the petitioner in P & SC No.58/2005 a point for consideration was framed that whether she is entitled for all the service benefits of late T.Dasappa as she is the wife of T.Dasappa and having 3 children through the said T.Dasappa and Trial Court having considered the material available on record, answered the first point for consideration in favour of petitioner in P & SC No.58/2005 answering the same as affirmative and in respect of other two points for consideration answered the same as negative and while passing the final order, dismissed P & SC No.44/2006 and allowed the petition in P & SC No.58/2005 and declared she is the wife of deceased T.Dasappa and she is entitled for succession certificate as sought in the petition and claim of respondent No.2 in P & SC No.58/2005 is rejected. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27965 MSA No. 15 of 2019 C/W MSA No. 116 of 2018 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, M.As’ are filed before the Appellate Court in M.A.Nos.4/2013 and 5/2013 and Appellate Court also having considered the grounds which have been urged in miscellaneous appeal and also considering the material on record, formulated the point whether sufficient grounds are made out to allow I.A.No.4 filed in M.A.No.4/2013 and whether lower Court was justified in holding that appellant has failed to substantiate his contention that he is the son of deceased T.Dasappa through his wife by name Jayamma and the Appellate Court in miscellaneous appeal, answered the point No.1 as negative and answered the point No.2 in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion that Trial Court was justified in holding that the appellant has failed to substantiate his contention that he is the son of deceased T.Dasappa through his wife by name Jayamma. The Appellate Court while considering the said aspect, taken note of the DNA test report and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the person who conducted the DNA has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27965 MSA No. 15 of 2019 C/W MSA No. 116 of 2018 not been examined before the Trial Court in order to prove the same and competent witness was not examined and hence, dismissed the same. These two miscellaneous first appeals are filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. The main contention of the counsel that issue is with regard to paternity and also the appeals are dismissed only on the ground that the contention was not substantiated by the appellant and counsel would contend that DNA test was also conducted. But, the dismissal only on the ground of technicality that the person who conducted the DNA was not examined and hence appellant’s counsel would submit that a liberty may be given to file a suit with regard to deciding of an issue of paternity of the appellant. 4. The counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that the said liberty cannot be given and both the Courts have taken note of the material available on record and also only with an intention to avoid - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27965 MSA No. 15 of 2019 C/W MSA No. 116 of 2018 the limitation, liberty is sought and there cannot be such liberty to file a suit. 5. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents, no dispute with regard to the fact that both are claiming that they are the legal heirs of T.Dasappa and also not in dispute that T.Dasappa was working and claim is also made in respect of the service benefits of T.Dasappa. No doubt the Trial Court dismissed P & SC filed by the appellant and also granted the succession certificate in respect of the respondent and when the appeal was filed, it is not in dispute that blood samples were collected and sent to the laboratory and also the fact that the said examination was done abroad, not in India and hence the person who conducted the examination was not examined before the Court and Appellate Court also dismissed the same on the ground of technicality that the person who conducted the examination in the laboratory was not examined and hence the DNA test cannot be relied upon. When such - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27965 MSA No. 15 of 2019 C/W MSA No. 116 of 2018 reasoning is given by the Appellate Court while considering the same and also issue is with regard to the paternity is concerned, since appellant claims that he is the son of the said T.Dasappa through his mother Jayamma. Having considered the material on record regarding paternity is concerned, finality is not attained and only on the ground of technicality, the person who conducted the examination of blood samples was not examined and when such being the case, I do not find any force in the contention of the respondent’s counsel that liberty cannot be given and this proceedings only in the probate proceedings and issue was taken up and also in miscellaneous appeal, not in the civil suit and hence the claim of the appellant cannot be curtailed in not giving any liberty and already this Court made an observation that report was not considered on merits and only on the technicality. Hence, contention of the counsel appearing for the respondent is overruled and liberty is given to the appellant to approach the Civil Court with regard to declaration of his paternity in the Civil Court - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27965 MSA No. 15 of 2019 C/W MSA No. 116 of 2018 and both the matters are not considered on merits in view of the submission of the counsel appearing for the appellant and considered the same for limited purpose of liberty. With these observations, both the MSAs’ are disposed of by giving liberty as sought. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43