Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.57 seconds)
Ajay Singh vs Smt. Rama Bai on 2 March, 2020 cites

M.P.Electricity Board Th.Exe.Eng.& ... vs Smt.Ram Kunwar Bai & Ors on 19 March, 2013

The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the respondents no.1 and 2 by projecting themselves to be the wife and son of Raghuvar filed an application for mutation of their names. The petitioner filed his objection and stated that the respondent no.2 is not the son of Late Raghuvar and has no right to get his name mutated and the petitioner being the nephew of Raghuvar has looked after the deceased and out of love and affection Late Raghuvar has bequeathed his property in favour of the petitioner by executing a Will. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application for determination of the paternity of respondent no.2 by conducting a DNA test. By order dated 29/8/2016 the Tahsildadr, Basoda, District Vidisha rejected the application on the ground that the similar application has already been rejected by order dated 15/6/2016. The petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was transferred to the Court of Additional Collector, Vidisha in view Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 05/03/2020 15:23:39 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.1239/2020 Ajay Singh Vs. Smt. Rama Bai and others of the amended provisions of MP Land Revenue Code and the Additional Collector by the impugned order dated 2/12/2019 has rejected the application.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - A K Shrivastava - Full Document

Shri Banarsi Dass vs Mrs. Teeku Dutta And Anr on 27 April, 2005

An application was made to subject Teeku Dutta to DNA test. The High Court held that the trial court being a testamentary court, the parties should be left to prove their respective cases on the basis of the evidence produced during trial, rather than creating evidence by directing DNA test. When the matter reached this Court, few decisions of this Court, particularly, Goutam Kundu were noticed and it was held that even the result of a genuine DNA test may not be enough to escape from the conclusiveness of Section 112 of the Evidence Act like a case where a husband and wife were living together during the time of conception. This is what this Court said: (Banarsi Dass case, SCC pp. 454-55, para 13) "13. We may remember that Section 112 of the Evidence Act was enacted at a time when the modern scientific advancements with deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as well as ribonucleic acid (RNA) tests were not even in contemplation of the legislature. The result of a genuine DNA test is said to be scientifically accurate. But even that is not enough to escape from the conclusiveness of Section 112 of the Evidence Act e.g. if a husband and wife were living together during the time of conception but the DNA test revealed that the child was not born to the husband, the conclusiveness in law would remain irrebuttable. This may look hard from the point of view of the husband who would be compelled to bear the fatherhood of a child of which he may be innocent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 96 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Ramkanya Bai vs Bharatram on 22 October, 2009

20. Recently, in Ramkanya Bai v. Bharatram decided by the Bench of which one of us, R.M. Lodha, J. was the member, the order of the High Court directing DNA test of the child at the instance of the husband was set aside and it was held that the High Court was not justified in allowing the application for grant of DNA test of the child on the ground that there will be possibility of reunion of the parties if such DNA test was conducted and if it was found from the outcome of the DNA test that the son was born from the wedlock of the parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 16 - T Chatterjee - Full Document
1