AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri CH.Santhosh Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Ashok Reddy Kanathala, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Radhika, learned counsel representing Smt. T.Siva Parvathi, learned counsel for respondents.
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed assailing the order dated 02.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.891 of 2025 in S.O.P.No.12 of 2022 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Warangal at Hanamkonda.
The brief facts of the petitions are that the biological father of petitioners Nos.1 and 3, namely Chengarapu Shiva Kumar, died on 16.05.2015 and his mortal remains were buried at SC Cemetery, Brilliant High School backside, Dornakal-Garla Bypass Road, Dornakal Mandal, Mahabubabad District. The petitioners seek exhumation of the mortal remains of the deceased for obtaining DNA samples from the skeletal remains and comparing the same with their DNA samples, in order to establish their biological relationship with the deceased and determine the rightful legal heirs for the purpose of obtaining succession certificate and other service, pension and death benefits. Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court in I.A.No.282 of 2025, the petitioners approached the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD), Hyderabad, which, by letter dated 10.11.2025, informed them that in the absence of biological samples of the deceased, paternity could not be ascertained.
The learned Trial Court, upon considering the pleadings, rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the material available on record, dismissed the said application by order dated 02.12.2025. It was observed that S.O.P No.12 of 2022 had been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking a declaration that they are the successors and legal heirs of the deceased Chengarapu Shiva Kumar and the petitioners herein were subsequently impleaded as respondents Nos.4 to 6 and were contesting the proceedings by claiming that late Chengarapu Shiva Kumar was the father of petitioners Nos.1 and 3. The learned Trial Court also took note of the earlier proceedings in I.A.No.282 of 2022, pursuant to which the petitioners Nos.1 and 3 and respondent No.2/Chengarapu Divya Sai Latha were referred for DNA testing.
Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the learned Trial Court ought not to have rejected the application, particularly when exhumation of the mortal remains of the deceased is necessary for obtaining DNA samples to determine the biological relationship and paternity of the revision petitioners. It was further contended that all other available avenues for establishing the said relationship have already been exhausted and that no other efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners except seeking exhumation of the mortal remains of the deceased. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the order under challenge be set aside and the application filed by the petitioners be allowed.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the revision petition and contended that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is well reasoned, based on the material available on record and does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.
Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioners seek exhumation of the mortal remains of late Chengarapu Shiva Kumar, who died on 16.05.2015, solely for the purpose of obtaining biological samples for DNA analysis to establish the alleged biological relationship of petitioners Nos.1 and 3 with the deceased. Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, the petitioners approached the CDFD, Hyderabad, which by communication dated 10.11 2025 informed that, in the absence of a biological sample of the deceased, paternity could not be ascertained. However, the said communication by itself does not confer a right upon the petitioners to seek exhumation.
The reliance placed upon Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is also of no assistance to the petitioners. The said provision deals with the relevancy of expert opinion and does not confer an independent or absolute right to seek exhumation of the mortal remains of a deceased person. In the present case, as rightly held by the trial court, there is no allegation of foul play, homicide, poisoning or any dispute concerning the cause or manner of death. The request for exhumation is only for establishing the alleged biological relationship in the pending succession proceedings.
It is further relevant that the deceased died nearly ten years prior to the filing of the application and the petitioners sought exhumation at an advanced stage of the proceedings. The respondents have also disputed the identification of the grave and the material relied upon by the petitioners to establish the place of burial. In such circumstances, the learned Trial Court was justified in taking into consideration the delay, the stage of the proceedings and the absence of sufficient material establishing that exhumation was necessary and would serve the purpose sought by the petitioners.
Having regard to the above circumstances, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has considered the relevant material and exercised its discretion in declining the prayer for exhumation. No perversity, illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error is made out in the order under challenge warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.