ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Akula, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2434 of 2023, Sri Srinivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2421 of 2023, Sri T. Ramachander Rao, learned counsel representing Sri V. Chandrakanth, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 9 in C.R.P. No. 2421 of 2023. Perused the record. 2. C.R.P. No. 2421 of 2023 is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24-03-2023 in I.A. No. 03 of 2021 in O.S. No. 87 of 2014 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases Relating to Atrocities Against Women-cum-V Additional District Judge at Khammam. 3. C.R.P. No. 2434 of 2023 is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13-07-2017 in I.A. No. 142 of 2016 in O.S. No. 87 of 2014 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge at Khammam. 4. Parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in O.S. No. 87 of 2014. 5. Plaintiff viz. Mr.Vadiga Amose is petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2421 of 2023. He filed O.S. No. 87 of 2014 seeking partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties, cancellation of registered sale deed, dated 29-06-2011, to declare the award (decree), dated 20-08-2005 made in LAC No. 1049 of 2005 before the Lok Adalat, Khammam as null and void and to declare the registered mortgage deed dated 20-11-2007 executed by defendant No. 3 as null and void, etc. against the defendants therein. 6. In the said suit, plaintiff had pleaded that he is the 2nd son of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy through his first wife Smt. Emelyamma, who is defendant No. 5. Defendant No. 1 is the elder brother of the plaintiff being the eldest son of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy and Smt. Emelyamma. Defendant No. 4 is the 2nd wife of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are sons of defendant No. 4 and Late Vadiga Veera Swamy. Mr. Vadiga Veera Swamy died on 20-01-1999. 7. Late Vadiga Veera Swamy during subsistence of his first marriage with defendant No. 5 and having two male children i.e. plaintiff and defendant No. 1, again married defendant No. 4 and begotten defendant Nos. 2 and 3, who are treated as illegitimate children of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy. 8. Mr. Vadiga Veera Swamy died on 20-01-1999. 7. Late Vadiga Veera Swamy during subsistence of his first marriage with defendant No. 5 and having two male children i.e. plaintiff and defendant No. 1, again married defendant No. 4 and begotten defendant Nos. 2 and 3, who are treated as illegitimate children of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy. 8. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have filed written statement in the said suit denying the said relationship that plaintiff is not the son of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy and Smt. Emelyamma. It is also alleged in the written statement that plaintiff is not the son of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy and Smt. Emelyamma. He has not filed any proof including educational records or other identity proof. In order to prove the same, it is necessary to conduct DNA test. Therefore, plaintiff had filed I.A. No. 3 of 2021 in O.S. No. 87 of 2014 under Sections 45 and 50 of Indian Evidence Act r/w. Section 151 of C.P.C. to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 5 along with plaintiff to undergo DNA test by appearing before the Center for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Government of India, Hyderabad, by giving blood samples to conduct DNA test and direct the authorities to conduct test as to biological paternity of defendant Nos. 1 and 5 as the same or not and whether defendant No. 1 is the biological brother of plaintiff or not and biological son of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy and Smt. Emelyamma (defendant No. 5). 9. The said application was opposed by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and defendant Nos. 6 and 8 contending that to undergo any DNA test, the male person of whom the allegations are made i.e. Late Vadiga Veera Swamy has to be alive or atleast his parents, brothers or sisters have to be alive. In the absence of the said persons, DNA test is meaningless and not valid, in accordance with law. It is not possible to conduct paternity test if the alleged father is dead, such as, using samples obtained in autopsy or through skeletal remains of the alleged father. In the present case, neither the alleged father is alive nor his biological relatives are alive. 10. It is not possible to conduct paternity test if the alleged father is dead, such as, using samples obtained in autopsy or through skeletal remains of the alleged father. In the present case, neither the alleged father is alive nor his biological relatives are alive. 10. Defendant No. 5, mother of the plaintiff, had filed a Maintenance Case against father of defendant No. 1 vide Case No. 286/5/1957 on the file of the learned Munsif Magistrate, Suryapet, Nalgonda District and the same was dismissed on 15-10-1958. Defendant No. 5 had also filed I.A. No. 142 of 2016 with the same relief of DNA test and the same was dismissed by the Court below vide order dated 13-07-2017. After lapse of four years, plaintiff had filed I.A. No. 03 of 2021. 11. Court below vide order dated 13-07-2017 dismissed I.A. No. 142 of 2016 filed by defendant No. 5 and vide order dated 24-03-2023 dismissed I.A. No. 03 of 2021 filed by plaintiff on the following grounds: “This Suit is filed for partition, separate possession of the suit schedule properties and other reliefs. This is not the case of legitimacy of respondent No. 1/plaintiff or matrimonial case. Even for a while considering the plea of petitioner/defendant No. 5 for conducting paternity test the alleged father has to be alive or atleast his parents, brothers or sisters have to be alive and no such, persons is alive in this case. If the alleged father is dead, the samples obtained in autopsy or through skeletal remains of such father are useful in conducting the said test and no such samples are available in this case. In the absence of above persons or samples, the very purpose of conducting the DNA test will not be served. Even otherwise, the petitioner herein is defendant No. 5 in the main suit and not the plaintiff, who is claiming the share in the properties of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy. The petitioner/defendant No. 5 contended that she intends to prove her chasity by undergoing DNA test, but respondent Nos. Even otherwise, the petitioner herein is defendant No. 5 in the main suit and not the plaintiff, who is claiming the share in the properties of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy. The petitioner/defendant No. 5 contended that she intends to prove her chasity by undergoing DNA test, but respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in their counter submitted that petitioner/defendant No. 5 has filed Maintenance Case against her husband Late Vadiga Veera Swamy in the year, 1957 on the file of learned Munsif Magistrate, Suryapet which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate, wherein Late Vadiga Veera Swamy filed his counter denying his paternity of the child i.e. respondent No. 1/plaintiff in this case and the said case was disposed in the year, 1957. From 1957, till the demise of Vadiga Veera Swamy, the petitioner/defendant No. 5 or respondent No. 1/plaintiff have not taken any steps to prove that respondent No. 1/plaintiff is the son of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy and after the demise of Veera Swamy and his biological relatives, respondent No. 1/plaintiff in collusion with petitioner/defendant No. 5 filed this case in order to gain wrongfully.” Challenging the said orders, plaintiff and defendant No. 5 have filed the present Civil Revision Petitions. 12. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners in both the Civil Revision Petitions would contend that Court below failed to consider that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are natural brothers born to defendant No. 5 through Late Vadiga Veera Swamy, and as such, if the DNA test is conducted for all three i.e. plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 5, the fact as to whether plaintiff is natural brother to defendant No. 1 or not can be ascertained and as such, for this purpose, the death of Vadiga Veera Swamy is not material. On the ground of dismissal of Maintenance Case filed by defendant No. 5, Court below cannot dismiss the applications filed by plaintiff as well as defendant No. 5 to conduct DNA test. 13. Whereas learned counsel appearing for the defendants would contend that that Court below considering the entire material and also the purpose and object of DNA test, dismissed the said applications and there is no error in the said orders. 14. 13. Whereas learned counsel appearing for the defendants would contend that that Court below considering the entire material and also the purpose and object of DNA test, dismissed the said applications and there is no error in the said orders. 14. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is relevant to discuss the object and purport of DNA test, which is as follows: DNA technology, as a latest tool of forensic science, is the by-product of modern genetic science. The said science established the belief that the pattern of chemical signals i.e. the genetic structure which may be discovered with the DNA molecule in the cells of each individual, is unique and different in every individual. As such, the chemical structure of the DNA in the cells of each individual is the sole determining factor to identify one separately from another except the genetically identical twins. The discovery of modern genetic science can be used in identification of criminals in criminal cases by analyzing various objects recovered on the crime spot like any body fluid, hair root, saliva, fibres etc. which are associated with the crime and accurately linked to the perpetrator of the crime. Actually, this technology is utilised as a new form of circumstantial evidence, which is placed on a higher footing than the direct and ocular evidence because of its objectivity, scientific accuracy, infallibility and impartial character. Moreover, this new technology is also extensively applied in civil cases in order to determine paternity or maternity disputes, baby-exchanging cases, succession cases, maintenance proceedings and matrimonial disputes etc. DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms. Nearly every cell in a person's body has the same DNA. Most DNA is located in the cell nucleus (where it is called nuclear DNA), but a small amount of DNA can also be found in the mitochondria (where it is called mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA). The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences. DNA bases pair up with each other, A with T and C with G, to form units called base pairs. Each base is also attached to a sugar molecule and a phosphate molecule. Together, a base, sugar, and phosphate are called a nucleotide. Nucleotides are arranged in two long strands that form a spiral called a double helix. The structure of the double helix is somewhat like a ladder, with the base pairs forming the ladder's rungs and the sugar and phosphate molecules forming the vertical sidepieces of the ladder. An important property of DNA is that it can replicate, or make copies of itself. Each strand of DNA in the double helix can serve as a pattern for duplicating the sequence of bases. This is critical when cells divide because each new cell needs to have an exact copy of the DNA present in the old cell. DNA Analysis as Evidence DNA is the fundamental building block of a person's entire genetic make-up. DNA is found in all human cells and is the same in every cell of the same person. Genetic identity is unique. Hence, a person's DNA profile can determine his identity. Everyone is born with a distinct genetic blueprint called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). It is exclusive to an individual (except in the rare occurrence of identical twins that share a single, fertilized egg). DNA never changes throughout life. DNA is part of every, cell in the human body, change DNA of an individual's blood remain in his or her skin cells, hair follicles, muscles, semen, samples from buccal swabs, saliva, or other body parts. (Emphasis supplied) 15. In Ashok Kumar vs. Raj Gupta, (2022) 1 SCC 20 the Apex Court held as follows: “15. DNA is unique to an individual (barring twins) and can be used to identify a person's identity, trace familial linkages or even reveal sensitive health information. (Emphasis supplied) 15. In Ashok Kumar vs. Raj Gupta, (2022) 1 SCC 20 the Apex Court held as follows: “15. DNA is unique to an individual (barring twins) and can be used to identify a person's identity, trace familial linkages or even reveal sensitive health information. Whether a person can be compelled to provide a sample for DNA in such matters can also be answered considering the test of proportionality laid down in the unanimous decision of this Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) vs. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 113, wherein the right to privacy has been declared a constitutionally protected right in India. The Court should therefore examine the proportionality of the legitimate aims being pursued i.e. whether the same are not arbitrary or discriminatory, whether they may have an adverse impact on the person and that they justify the encroachment upon the privacy and personal autonomy of the person, being subjected to the DNA test.” 16. In K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) vs. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 113 the Apex Court held as under: “279. It was submitted that privacy rights against both the State and non-State actors. There is a qualitative difference between right to privacy against the State and against nonState actors. Subba Rao, J. dissent in Kharak Singh vs. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 1295 : (1963) 2 Cri. L.J. 329 : (1964) 1 SCR 332 , was relied upon wherein it was stated that the existence of concentrated and centralised State power, rather than its actual or potential use that creates the chilling effect and leads to psychological restraint on the ability of citizens to think freely. Therefore, individuals have a higher expectation of privacy from the State. In the vein, it was further submitted that the State was imposing disproportionate and unreasonable State compulsion. States do not have the power to compel their citizens to do particular acts, except in a narrow range of defined circumstances. As sentinels on the qui vive, Courts are duty-bound to protect citizens against State compulsion, whether in the context of forcibly undergoing narcoanalysis/lie detector tests or forcibly undergoing sterilisation. Compulsion can be used in limited circumstances such as punishment for law-breaking, compulsion in the aid of law-enforcement, and compulsion to prevent potential law-breaking. These include fines, imprisonment, fingerprint collection for criminals and prisoners. Compulsion can be used in limited circumstances such as punishment for law-breaking, compulsion in the aid of law-enforcement, and compulsion to prevent potential law-breaking. These include fines, imprisonment, fingerprint collection for criminals and prisoners. Even in medical jurisprudence, the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1 elaborates on the concepts of dignity, bodily integrity and decisional autonomy. For DNA tests and blood tests to be conducted a high standard of evidence is required. Similarly “refusal of treatment” is a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the United States of America as stated in Cruzan vs. Missouri Deptt. of Health, 1990 SCC Online US SC 123 : 111 L Ed 2d 224 : 497 US 261 (1990).” 17. In Inayath Ali vs. State of Telangana, Criminal Appeal No. 1569 of 2022, decided on 15.09.2022 the Apex Court held as follows: “9. The substance of the complaint was not related to paternity of the children of the Respondent No. 2 but the question was whether the offences under the aforesaid provisions of the 1860 Code was committed against her or not. The paternity of the two daughters of the Respondent No. 2 is a collateral factor to the allegations on which the criminal case is otherwise founded. On the basis of the available materials, in our opinion, the case out of which this proceeding arises could be decided without considering the DNA test report. This was the reasoning which was considered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra), though that was a civil suit. Merely because something is permissible under the law cannot be directed as a matter of course to be performed particularly when a direction to that effect would be invasive to the physical autonomy of a person. The consequence thereof would not be confined to the question as to whether such an order would result in testimonial compulsion, but encompasses right to privacy as well. Such direction would violate the privacy right of the persons subjected to such tests and could be prejudicial to the future of the two children who were also sought to be brought within the ambit of the Trial Court's direction.” 18. Such direction would violate the privacy right of the persons subjected to such tests and could be prejudicial to the future of the two children who were also sought to be brought within the ambit of the Trial Court's direction.” 18. In Goutam Kundu vs. State of West Bengal, (1993) 3 SCC 418 the Apex Court observed that the Indian law leans towards legitimacy and that a direction for DNA test should be passed only after balancing the interests of the parties, including the rights of the child, and if such a test is eminently needed. 19. Referring to the said judgments, the Apex Court in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, 2023 SCC Online SC 161 the Apex Court culled out certain principles as to the circumstances under which a DNA test of minor child may be directed to be conducted, and the same are as under: (i) That a DNA test of a minor child is not to be ordered routinely, in matrimonial disputes. Proof by way of DNA profiling is to be directed in matrimonial disputes involving allegations of infidelity, only in matters where there is no other mode of proving such assertions. (ii) DNA tests of children born during the subsistence of a valid marriage may be directed, only when there is sufficient prima-facie material to dislodge the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. Further, if no plea has been raised as to non-access, in order to rebut the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, a DNA test may not be directed. (iii) A Court would not be justified in mechanically directing a DNA test of a child, in a case where the paternity of a child is not directly in issue, but is merely collateral to the proceeding. (iv) Merely because either of the parties have disputed a factum of paternity, it does not mean that the Court should direct DNA test or such other test to resolve the controversy. The parties should be directed to lead evidence to prove or disprove the factum of paternity and only if the Court finds it impossible to draw an inference based on such evidence, or the controversy in issue cannot be resolved without DNA test, it may direct DNA test and not otherwise. The parties should be directed to lead evidence to prove or disprove the factum of paternity and only if the Court finds it impossible to draw an inference based on such evidence, or the controversy in issue cannot be resolved without DNA test, it may direct DNA test and not otherwise. In other words, only in exceptional and deserving cases, where such a test becomes indispensable to resolve the controversy the Court can direct such test. (v) While directing DNA tests as a means to prove adultery, the Court is to be mindful of the consequences thereof on the children born out of adultery, including inheritance-related consequences, social stigma, etc. 20. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with expert opinion and it says when the Court has to form an opinion upon the a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Therefore, Court can call for the said expert opinion to decide the lis involved in the matter basing on such opinion. Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with Opinion on relationship, when relevant and it says that when the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, or any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact: Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (4 of 1869) or in prosecutions under section 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). 21. In the light of the said legal position, coming to the facts of the case on hand, as discussed supra, plaintiff had filed the aforesaid suit seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and other releifs. Plaintiff is claiming that he is the 2nd son of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy and his first wife Smt. Emelyamma/defendant No. 5. Plaintiff is claiming that he is the 2nd son of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy and his first wife Smt. Emelyamma/defendant No. 5. Defendant No. 1 is the elder brother of plaintiff being the eldest son of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy and Smt. Emelyamma. Defendant No. 4 is 2nd wife of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are sons of defendant No. 4 and Late Vadiga Veera Swamy, who died on 20-01-1999. 22. During subsistence of his first marriage with defendant No. 5 and having two male children i.e. plaintiff and defendant No. 1, Late Vadiga Veera Swamy again married defendant No. 4, begotten to defendant Nos. 2 and 3, who are illegitimate children of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and defendant Nos. 6 and 8 have denied the said relationship. 23. Afore-stated facts would reveal that according to the plaintiff, defendant No. 4 i.e. Smt. Ramalaxmi is 1st wife and defendant No. 5 i.e. Smt. Emelyamma is the 2nd wife of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy. 24. It is relevant to note that defendant No. 5 and plaintiff have filed a Maintenance Case vide Case No. 286/5/1957 on the file of the learned Munsif Magistrate, Suryapet, Nalgonda District against Late Vadiga Veera Swamy. The said Maintenance Case was dismissed vide order dated 15-10-1958. 25. Perusal of the said record would reveal that defendant No. 5 and plaintiff have filed the said Maintenance Case against Late Vadiga Veera Swamy claiming Maintenance contending that defendant No. 5 is wife and plaintiff is the son of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy. In the said case, Late Vadiga Veera Swamy filed a written statement contending as follows: “The petitioner No. 1 was his wife but now neither she is his wife nor petitioner No. 2 is his son. After the birth of a child who is now residing with the respondent their marital relationship is severed as per custom prevailing in Harijan community. This separation took place in the presence of elders at Gudimalla. The respondent further stated that petitioner No. 1 developed illicit relations with one person at Chivemla and began to live in adultery. After the birth of his child who is with the respondent now, the petitioner No. 1 never returned to Gudimalla, except at the time of separation of their marriage. The petitioner No. 1 was not pregnant at the time of separation. After the birth of his child who is with the respondent now, the petitioner No. 1 never returned to Gudimalla, except at the time of separation of their marriage. The petitioner No. 1 was not pregnant at the time of separation. He further stated that the respondent is the resident of Gudimalla Khammeth district. He never resided at Chivemla with petitioner No. 1 as such the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain Maintenance Case.” 26. In the said Maintenance Case, defendant No. 5 examined 4 witnesses whereas Late Vadiga Veera Swamy examined 3 witnesses including themselves. On consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary, learned Magistrate dismissed the said Maintenance Case vide order dated 15-10-1958 on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the said Maintenance Case. Therefore, he could not give any opinion about the defence as well as separation or divorce alleged by Late Vadiga Veera Swamy. On the point of jurisdiction, the said Maintenance Case was dismissed. Thus, learned Magistrate has recorded deposition of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy denying the relationship between defendant No. 5 and himself. There is no challenge to the said order and it attained finality. 27. From 15-10-1958 to 20-01-1999 i.e. date of death of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy, plaintiff and defendant No. 5 did not take any steps. Plaintiff had filed the present suit i.e. O.S. No. 87 of 2014 only in the year 2014 i.e. after 14 years of death of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy. Therefore, after the death of Late Vadiga Veera Swamy and his biological relatives, plaintiff cannot seek to conduct DNA test to prove the paternity. As rightly held by the Court below it is not possible to conduct paternity test after the death of Veera Swamy, such as, using samples obtained in autopsy or through skeletal remains in the absence of persons physically or samples conducting DNA test is impermissible. 28. There is delay in filing the present suit by the plaintiff as well as defendant No. 5. It is also relevant to note that though the suit was filed in the year 2014 and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have filed written statement on 14-11-2014, defendant No. 5 had filed I.A. No. 142 of 2016 after lapse of 2 years. The said I.A. was dismissed on 13-07-2017. She has filed the present revision in 2023 i.e. after a period of six years. 1 to 4 have filed written statement on 14-11-2014, defendant No. 5 had filed I.A. No. 142 of 2016 after lapse of 2 years. The said I.A. was dismissed on 13-07-2017. She has filed the present revision in 2023 i.e. after a period of six years. The plaintiff had filed I.A. No. 03 of 2021 after lapse of 7 years of filing of written statement by defendant Nos. 1 to 4. 29. As discussed supra, considering the said aspects, Courts below rightly dismissed both I.A. No. 03 of 2021 and I.A. No. 142 of 2016 in O.S. No. 87 of 2014, filed by defendant No. 5 and plaintiff respectively. There is no error in the said orders and does not deserve interference of this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed. 30. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 31. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these revisions shall stand closed.