H. SUSHEELA Vs. G. HANUMANTHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 18.06.2013 on I.A. No. 6 in O.S. No. 7861/2010 on the file of the V Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore, whereby I.A. No. 6 an application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) r/w Section 151 of CPC filed by the defendants came to be allowed and the plaint has been rejected.

(2.) Plaintiff- H. Susheela claiming to be the daughter of defendant No. 1-G. Hanumanthappa from his second wife Smt. Saraswathamma, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. The defendant No. 1 denied relationship as claimed by the plaintiff that she is the daughter of defendant No. 1-G. Hanumanthappa by his second wife Smt. Saraswathamma. In view of the denial of the relationship by defendant No. 1, the plaintiff filed an application for conducting DNA test. The application was opposed by the defendant No. 1. It came to be allowed by the Court below and a Commissioner was appointed for conducting the DNA test to find out whether the plaintiff is the biological daughter of defendant No. 1-G. Hanumanthappa. The blood samples of both plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were taken by the Doctor from Victoria Hospital in the chambers of Registrar City Civil Court, Bangalore as per the Court direction in the presence of advocate for the plaintiff. The blood samples were collected and submitted to the Laboratory at Hyderabad and the report regarding DNA test has been secured, which went against the plaintiff. Since the contention taken by the defendant No. 1 is vindicated by the report of DNA test, defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) r/w Section 151 of CPC at I.A. No. 6 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose the cause of action and that the plaintiff is not the biological daughter of defendant No. 1. The application was opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that she had filed objections to the report of the DNA test on the ground that blood samples were not taken properly in a hygienic conditions and therefore, report of the DNA test is liable to be set aside. Both the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants were heard on. I.A. No. 6 and by order dated 18.06.201.3, I.A. No. 6 came to be allowed rejecting the plaint.

(3.) Aggrieved by the rejection of the plaint, this appeal is preferred by the plaintiff.