Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)Sri. Hanumappa vs Yallakka on 3 September, 2014
5. The suit is for partition. The plaintiff-first
respondent herein claims that the first defendant-
petitioner herein is her daughter born through her and
one Krishnappa. The defendants have denied the same.
The application filed by the first defendant-petitioner for
DNA test is rightly rejected by the trial Court holding
that both parties have already let in evidence and the
evidence lead by the parties is sufficient for deciding the
subject-matter of the suit. The plaintiffs and
defendants have produced documents before the Court
which the trial Court has noted in its order. The DNA
-5-
test, as held by this Court in the case of Hanumappa
.vs. Yalakka and others reported in 2014(5) KCCR
1317, has to be ordered only in exceptional
circumstances and shall not be ordered in routine
manner. Therefore, taking note of the same, the trial
Court has passed the impugned order, which does not
require interference by this Court. The trial Court has
not committed any error or illegality in rejecting I.A.No.9
filed under Order XXVI Rule 10A by the petitioner.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1