Hindu Law – Partition – Claim of coparcenary share – Plaintiff claiming to be son of deceased – Burden of proof – When paternity is seriously disputed, burden lies heavily on plaintiff to establish lawful relationship and birth through cogent evidence – Mere self-serving statements or uncorroborated testimony insufficient to prove paternity. (Paras 13–16, 31–32)

advocatemmmohan

Hindu Law – Partition – Claim of coparcenary share – Plaintiff claiming to be son of deceased – Burden of proof – When paternity is seriously disputed, burden lies heavily on plaintiff to establish lawful relationship and birth through cogent evidence – Mere self-serving statements or uncorroborated testimony insufficient to prove paternity.

(Paras 13–16, 31–32)

---

Evidence Act, 1872 – Documentary evidence – Voters list, affidavits and similar documents – Entries based on information supplied by individuals – Such documents are only corroborative in nature and cannot by themselves establish relationship or paternity.

(Para 16)

---

Evidence – Self-serving affidavits – Evidentiary value – Affidavits executed by interested persons without examination of witnesses or supporting evidence carry little evidentiary weight and cannot prove marital relationship or legitimacy.

(Para 17)

---

Civil Procedure Code – Partition suit – Non-joinder of necessary parties – When portions of suit property had been alienated to third parties prior to suit, purchasers are necessary parties – Failure to implead such alienees renders suit defective.

(Paras 26–28)

---

Civil Procedure Code – Order XLI Rule 27 – Additional evidence in appeal – Additional evidence cannot be permitted merely to fill lacunae – Party must show due diligence and exceptional circumstances – Delay of more than two decades in producing documents without explanation is fatal.

(Paras 36–42)

---

Evidence – DNA test – Scope – Courts should not direct DNA test as a matter of course – Such direction can be issued only when strong prima facie case exists – Courts must consider consequences such as branding a child illegitimate and cannot compel a person to give sample for testing.

(Paras 47–49)

---

Partition – Proof of heirship – When plaintiff fails to establish that he is the son of the deceased and legal heir, he is not entitled to claim coparcenary share in family properties.

(Paras 31–32)

---

RESULT

Appeal Suit Dismissed –

• Judgment and decree dated 06-08-2003 in O.S.No.55 of 1996 of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni confirmed.

• Plaintiff failed to prove that he is the son of late Hanuma Reddy and therefore not entitled to any share in the suit properties.

• I.A. Nos.1 & 2 of 2024 seeking additional evidence and DNA test dismissed.

• Each party to bear their own costs.

(Paras 51–52)