Tripura High Court: T. Amarnath Goud, J., dealt with a petition wherein the case of the petitioner was that the respondent was not the son of the deceased Kshitish Ghosh and under the garb of certain Wills the respondent was selling the properties which were in dispute before the trial court. Petition further prayed to reconsider DNA testing approval which was dismissed earlier.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent was alienating the properties to third parties and nothing remains for the petitioners who were the siblings if they succeeded before the trial court. Counsel for the first respondent who claimed to be the son of the deceased Kshitish Ghosh and his spouse Fulu Rani Ghosh submitted that in his school records, and birth certificate and all documents indicated that the respondent was the son of the deceased.

The Court observed that it was not disputed that the records and certificates produced by the respondent were in the knowledge of the petitioner. The only attack of the petitioner-plaintiffs before the trial court was challenging the Will and to declare the petitioner-plaintiffs as legal heirs and not the first respondent, Partha Ghosh.

The Court held that unless and until there was a challenge to the birth documents and school register to show that Kshitish Ghosh was not the father of the first respondent, Partha Ghosh, there cannot be any direction to get the DNA of first respondent tested to declare whether he was the son of the deceased Kshitish Ghosh and Fulu Rani Ghosh or not. The Court was of the view that it was not the aspect to be decided by the Court; however, petitioners-plaintiffs are at liberty to move applications before the concerned court seeking appropriate remedy in support of their claim to protect the property.

The Court dismissed the petition not intending to interfere in the matter.[Nirmal Ch Ghosh v. Partha Ghosh, 2022 SCC OnLine Tri 8, decided on 04-01-2022]

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr T. D. Majumder

For Respondent(s): Mr S. Lodh

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.