Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal

“One, Who Comes to the Court, Must Come with Clean Hands” – In a significant ruling on proof of paternity in partition suits, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a long-pending appeal seeking partition on the basis of alleged coparcenary rights.

Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao upheld the trial Court’s judgment dated 06.08.2003, confirming that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was the son of late D. Hanuma Reddy through an alleged second marriage. The Court also dismissed applications filed after 21 years seeking to introduce additional evidence and to compel respondents to undergo DNA testing.

The ruling reiterates strict standards for proving marriage and paternity, the limited scope of additional evidence at appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, and the cautious approach required before directing DNA tests.

The appellant-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 55 of 1996 before the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, seeking partition of joint family properties into two equal shares, claiming to be the son of late Hanuma Reddy through his alleged second wife, Jayasree Reddy.

According to the plaintiff, after the death of Hanuma Reddy on 17.01.1993, disputes arose and the defendants—his alleged stepmother and step-sisters—refused to grant him his share.

The defendants categorically denied:

“the plaintiff and Jayasree are strangers to the family of Hanuma Reddy.”

They asserted that Defendant No.1 was the legally wedded wife, Defendants 2 and 3 were their daughters, and that a registered partition deed dated 19.02.1971 had already divided the properties. They also pointed out that some properties had been alienated to third parties long before the suit.

The trial Court dismissed the suit in 2003, holding that paternity was not proved. The present appeal challenged that decree.

Court’s Observations on Proof of Marriage and Paternity

The Court placed heavy emphasis on the absence of pleadings regarding the alleged second marriage.

Justice Rao observed:

“There is no whisper in the plaint that the alleged marriage of Hanuma Reddy with the mother of the plaintiff was performed, at which place and also the date and month of the alleged marriage.”

Even in oral evidence, contradictions surfaced. The plaintiff stated the marriage took place in 1965 at Tirupati, while his mother (PW2) deposed that it occurred in 1968 at Tirumala Hills.

The Court found:

“Except the self-serving statement of P.W.2, there is no other evidence to show about the factum of marriage.”

No marriage invitations, photographs, relatives, or independent witnesses were produced. The Court stressed that when paternity is “seriously disputed,” the burden lies heavily on the plaintiff.

Evidentiary Value of Voter List, Affidavits and SSC Certificate

The plaintiff relied upon voter lists, affidavits, SSC certificates with corrections, and a hospital letter regarding birth.

The Court made a strong observation on voter lists:

“Voters list is prepared on the statement and particulars furnished by such person. It is in the nature of self-serving, it is not safe to place much reliance upon it.”

Regarding affidavits (Ex.A6 and Ex.A7), the Court noted that they were self-serving, executed at Hyderabad without explanation, and attestors were not examined.

The SSC certificate (Ex.A9) contained material corrections in the name, father’s name, and date of birth, without proper authentication. The Court held that without summoning Board officials:

“Ex.A-9 cannot be considered as a certificate of the appellant.”

The alleged birth letter (Ex.A10) was also rejected for not being proved as a public document under Section 76 of the Evidence Act.

Land Reforms Proceedings: A Strong Circumstance Against Plaintiff

A decisive factor was evidence given by Hanuma Reddy himself before the Land Reforms Tribunal in 1975.

He declared that he had only one wife and two daughters, and “had no sons.”

The Court observed:

“Had there been any truth in the case of the appellant, the said Hanuma Reddy certainly would have disclosed the alleged factum of marriage with P.W.2 and also the birth of P.W.1.”

This admission was treated as a strong circumstance discrediting the plaintiff’s claim.

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties in Partition Suit

The plaintiff admitted that several suit properties were alienated through registered sale deeds (Ex.A11 to A15) prior to filing the suit in 1996. However, the alienees were not impleaded.

Relying on Vemuganti Venkata Kalyani and Rangammal v. Kuppuswami (2011) 12 SCC 220, the Court held that granting partition relief in absence of alienees would affect third-party rights.

The Court concluded:

“The suit itself is defective for non-joinder of necessary parties.”

Significantly, the Court remarked:

“The principle of finality of litigation cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud… One, who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands.”

Additional Evidence at Appellate Stage: Order XLI Rule 27 CPC

After 21 years, the appellant sought to produce Gazette notification, service register extracts, transfer certificate, and duplicate SSC certificate.

Referring to Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148, the Court reiterated that additional evidence is permissible only in exceptional circumstances.

Justice Rao observed:

“The true test… is whether the Appellate Court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence.”

Finding no due diligence and no necessity, the Court held that the attempt was merely to “fill the lacunae.”

I.A. No.1 of 2024 was dismissed.

DNA Test at Appellate Stage: Reliance on Goutam Kundu

The appellant also sought a direction for DNA testing of his alleged step-sisters.

The Court relied on Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) 3 SCC 418, which held:

“Courts in India cannot order blood test as a matter of course.”

“There must be a strong prima facie case.”

The Court emphasized that the suit was filed in 1996, dismissed in 2003, and the DNA application was filed in 2024—after 21 years.

No foundational pleading of marriage was made in the plaint. Therefore, no strong prima facie case existed.

The Court refused to compel DNA testing and dismissed I.A. No.2 of 2024.Answering all issues against the appellant, the Court held that:

The plaintiff failed to prove the marriage of his mother with Hanuma Reddy.

He failed to establish paternity.

The suit was defective for non-joinder of necessary parties.

There was no justification to admit additional evidence after 21 years.

DNA testing was unwarranted at the appellate stage.

Accordingly, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 and A.S.No.4145 of 2003 were dismissed, confirming the trial Court’s decree. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.

Date of Decision: 18.02.2026