Saradaga Narasayya Reddy v. Dingu Kanaka Mahalakshmi, 2026

The respondent instituted a partition suit claiming rights in the suit schedule properties as the daughter of the petitioner.

The petitioner disputed the respondent’s paternity and contended that she was not his biological daughter.

It was alleged by the petitioner that the respondent was actually the daughter of his elder brother.

The petitioner filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10-A read with Section 151 CPC seeking a direction for DNA testing of the respondent.

The trial court dismissed the application seeking DNA test.

Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court through a civil revision petition.

The petitioner argued that refusal of the respondent to undergo DNA testing should result in an adverse inference against her.

It was further argued that the DNA test would assist the Court in determining the issue of paternity, which was central to the partition dispute.

The respondent opposed the plea for DNA testing and continued to assert her status as the petitioner’s daughter.

The High Court examined whether DNA testing could be compelled in a partition suit merely to disprove paternity.

The Court also considered Supreme Court precedents dealing with DNA testing and presumption of legitimacy of children born during valid marriage.

The High Court held that the petitioner could not insist upon a DNA test in order to disprove the respondent’s claim of being his daughter in a partition suit.

The Court observed that the petitioner must establish his plea regarding non-paternity through other legally admissible evidence.

Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao emphasized that DNA testing cannot be ordered merely because paternity is disputed in a property dispute.

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2024) 7 SCC 773, which held that requests for DNA testing must be examined from the perspective of the child and not merely the parents.

The Court also relied upon Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1993 SC 2295, wherein the Supreme Court cautioned against routinely directing blood tests in view of the strong presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.

The High Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that refusal to undergo DNA testing should lead to an adverse inference.

The Court held that paternity disputes involving legitimacy of a child require careful judicial consideration and cannot be casually subjected to scientific testing.

The High Court found no illegality in the order passed by the trial court dismissing the application for DNA testing.

Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed.

The Court also imposed costs of Rs. 3,000 upon the petitioner.

The judgment reinforces judicial restraint in ordering DNA tests in civil disputes involving legitimacy and paternity.

The Court protected the dignity, privacy, and welfare of the child by emphasizing that DNA testing should not be ordered routinely.

The ruling upholds the principle embodied in Section 112 of the Evidence Act, which strongly presumes legitimacy of a child born during a valid marriage.

The judgment reflects the balancing exercise between scientific evidence and social/legal presumptions recognized under family law.

By relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court reaffirmed that DNA testing cannot become a mechanical tool in property disputes.

The decision discourages misuse of DNA testing applications as a litigation strategy in partition suits.

The Court clarified that burden of disproving paternity must be discharged through legally admissible evidence other than compelled DNA testing.

The judgment strengthens child-centric jurisprudence by prioritizing the best interests and social legitimacy of the child.

The ruling may serve as an important precedent in future disputes involving paternity challenges in civil and family proceedings.