High Court upholds dismissal of partition suit, finds paternity unproven and rejects fresh evidence and DNA plea

A single-judge bench of Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao heard the first appeal by D. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy challenging the decree and judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, in O.S. No.55 of 1996 which dismissed his suit for partition of family properties. The appeal raised the core question whether the appellant proved that he was the son of the late D. Hanuma Reddy and, if so, whether he was entitled to a share in the plaint schedule properties; the appellant also sought to place additional documents on record and to direct DNA testing of the respondent sisters.

The High Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the appellant failed to prove his paternity and therefore was not entitled to any share in the properties. The judge held that the appellant did not lead cogent evidence to establish a solemnized second marriage of his mother with Hanuma Reddy, and that several documents relied on by the appellant were self-serving, materially defective or not placed on record in the trial. The Court dismissed I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 seeking reception of additional documents and DNA testing, observing that the interlocutory applications came after long delay and did not meet the strict tests under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The principle of finality of litigation cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands.” The judgment further stated that, on the evidence, “Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the plaint schedule property.”

Background The plaintiff originally filed O.S. No.55 of 1996 seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties into two halves and to allot one share to himself, claiming to be a son of the late D. Hanuma Reddy by his second wife Jayasree (Devanamma). The defendants — the legal wife and daughters of Hanuma Reddy — denied the paternity, pointed to a registered partition deed dated 19.02.1971 and to evidence given by Hanuma Reddy before the Land Reforms Tribunal in 1975 where he stated he had only two daughters and no sons. At trial the plaintiff examined two witnesses and produced several documents (Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-16); the defendants adduced D.W. evidence and exhibited Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-4. The trial court found that material facts about the alleged marriage (date, place, witnesses) were not proved, certain documents (voter list, affidavits, school certificate, hospital letter) were self-serving or defective, and that portions of the schedule property had been alienated to third parties who were not impleaded. The trial court dismissed the suit on 06.08.2003. On appeal the appellant sought to admit, as additional evidence, a Gazette notification, service register pages, a transfer certificate and a duplicate SSC, and moved for DNA testing of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The High Court applied settled principles governing reception of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. and the tests for ordering blood/DNA tests, including the need for a strong prima facie case and avoidence of “roving inquiry” or consequences that would unfairly brand parties, and found no merit in the late applications. The court held that the trial court had rightly concluded that the paternity was not proved, the suit was defective for non-joinder of alienees, and the appeal failed; I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 were dismissed and each party was left to bear their own costs.

Case No.: APPEAL SUIT No.4145 of 2003 (2026:APHC:6177) Case Title: D. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy v. Smt D. Hanumanthamma and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): K L N Swamy For the Respondent(s): Vivekananda Virupaksha; H. Prahalada Reddy