JEETO AND OTHERS Vs. JARNAIL SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 22.1.2011 whereby the trial court had dismissed the application which had been filed by them with a prayer that DNA test of Jarnail Singh, defendant No.1 and Kulwant Kaur, defendant No.3 be conducted so as to determine whether defendant No.1 was born from the wedlock of defendant No.3 Kulwant Kaur and Dharam Singh who had expired on 6.2.1986.

(2.) Brief facts may be noticed. The plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for declaration that they were owners of land to the extent of 1/7 th share each of land measuring 107 kanals 6 marlas alongwith defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The defendant Nos.1 and 3 on appearance had taken the plea that Charan Kaur, mother of the plaintiffs and grand-mother of

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial court had erroneously dismissed the application as it was essential for the just decision of the case and paternity of defendant No.1 was required to be determined so that the defence taken by the defendants be falsified. Further, reference was made to Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act also. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Rohit Shekhar v. Narayan Dutt Tiwari, 2010 168 DLT 326to contend that in a case where question of paternity had to be adjudicated, the court should not have rejected the prayer for DNA test in the manner it has been done.