16 February 2026 Legal Updates

Rajasthan HC Orders DNA Test of 93-Year-Old in ‘Rarest of Rare’ Maternity Denial Property Dispute 

a) Case Title: 

• Smt. Bhauri Devi v. Mahendra Kumar & Ors. 

b) Court: 

• Rajasthan High Court 

c) Date of Decision: 

• 9th February 2026 

d) Bench:

• Justice Bipin Gupta 

Facts of the Case 

The petitioner claimed to be the daughter of a deceased man and sought half share in his ancestral agricultural property. She challenged a 2014 registered will executed by her father, arguing that ancestral property could not be disposed of by will in such manner. 

Her alleged mother, aged 93, opposed the suit and denied that the petitioner was her daughter. Notably, she did not dispute her marriage to the petitioner’s father, but denied maternity. 

The petitioner sought a DNA test under Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC to establish maternity. The trial court rejected the request, citing privacy concerns. The petitioner then approached the High Court. 

Issues Raised 

• Whether a DNA test can be ordered to determine maternity in a property dispute? 
• Whether there exists any statutory presumption regarding maternity under evidence law? 
• Whether ordering DNA testing violates the right to privacy? 
• Whether refusal to undergo DNA testing permits adverse presumption? 

Contentions of the Petitioner 

• She is the biological daughter of the 93-year-old respondent. 
• Since maternity is denied, scientific evidence is necessary. 
• Evidence law provides presumption for paternity, but not maternity. 
• DNA test is essential to establish inheritance rights. 
• Trial court wrongly rejected application under Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC. 

Contentions of the Respondent (Mother & Others) 

• Forcing DNA test infringes privacy rights. 
• The petitioner failed to establish prima facie case. 
• Compelling an elderly woman to undergo testing is intrusive. 

Court’s Reasoning & Key Findings

1. No Statutory Presumption of Maternity:

The Court examined

• Section 112, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 
• Corresponding provision under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 

These provisions create presumption regarding paternity of a child born during subsistence of marriage or within 280 days of its dissolution. 

However

• There is no statutory presumption regarding maternity. 
• Legislature did not contemplate a scenario where a mother denies her own child. 

The Court called it a “rarest of rare” situation. 

2. DNA Test as Conclusive Scientific Evidence: 

• In absence of legislative presumption, modern science can conclusively determine maternity. 
• DNA testing provides near-certain results. 
• When parentage is in serious dispute, scientific evidence is relevant and permissible. 

3. Privacy vs Truth-Finding:

The Court acknowledged that

• A person cannot be forcibly subjected to DNA testing. 
• However, if a party refuses, the Court can draw adverse presumption. 

Referred to

• Section 114, Indian Evidence Act 
• Section 119, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 

If respondent refuses DNA test, presumption may operate in favour of petitioner. 

4. Property & Inheritance Implications 

• Establishing maternity is crucial to determine legal heirship. 
• Without proof of relationship, inheritance claim cannot succeed. 

Thus, scientific determination was necessary to ensure justice. 

5. Final Verdict:

• Trial court order set aside. 
• Directed that the 93-year-old woman undergo DNA test. 
• If she refuses, adverse presumption shall operate in favour of petitioner. 

Legal Principles Established 

1️. Presumption Under Evidence Law – Paternity vs Maternity:

Section 112, Indian Evidence Act / BSA 2023 

• Presumes legitimacy of child born during marriage. 
• Designed primarily to protect child’s status and prevent bastardisation. 
• Focuses on paternity, not maternity. 

There is no express statutory presumption of maternity. 

2️. DNA Testing in Civil Disputes:

Courts may order DNA testing when: 

• Parentage is directly in issue. 
• No alternative evidence is sufficient. 
• Justice demands scientific clarification. 

However: 

• Cannot be ordered routinely. 
• Must balance privacy and evidentiary necessity. 

3️. Adverse Presumption:

If a party refuses to undergo DNA test: 

• Court may draw inference under: 
• Section 114, Evidence Act 
• Section 119, BSA 2023 

This strengthens the opposing party’s claim. 

4️. Right to Privacy vs Evidentiary Needs:

• Privacy is a constitutional right under Article 21. 
• Not absolute. 
• Can be restricted when: 
• Legitimate state interest exists 
• Proportionality is satisfied 
• Truth determination in judicial process requires it 

5️. Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC:

• Allows court to issue commission for scientific investigation. 
• Includes DNA testing where necessary. 

‘Ancestral Property’ Unknown to Muslim Law: Gujarat HC Rejects Daughter’s Birthright Claim in Father’s Estate 

a) Case Title:

•  Yusufbhai Walibhai Patel & Ors. v. Zubedaben Abbasbhai Patel & Ors. 

b) Court: 

• Gujarat High Court 

c) Date of Decision: 

• 13th February 2026 

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff, a Muslim daughter, filed a suit seeking share in several immovable properties standing in the names of her brothers. She claimed that the properties were purchased out of her father’s earnings and therefore constituted joint family/ancestral property in which she had a birthright. 

She also sought interim injunction to restrain her brothers from alienating or developing the property. The trial court partly allowed the injunction. 

The brothers challenged the order, arguing that the entire suit was founded on concepts alien to Mohammedan Law — namely joint family property and ancestral property. 

Issues Raised 

• Whether the concept of “ancestral property” and “right by birth” applies under Mohammedan Law? 
• Whether Muslim heirs can claim a share in father’s property during his lifetime? 
• Whether joint family presumption applies to Muslim families? 
• Whether interim injunction restraining alienation was justified? 

Contentions of the Plaintiff (Daughter)

• Properties were acquired from father’s earnings for benefit of entire family. 
• Therefore, they should be treated as joint family or ancestral property. 
• Brothers sold lands without giving her share. 
• Development of property during pendency of suit would prejudice her claim. 

Contentions of the Defendants (Brothers)

• Muslim law does not recognize ancestral property or joint family concept. 
• No heir has any right during lifetime of father. 
• Suit was filed after 37 years — barred by delay and acquiescence. 
• Plaintiff wrongly applied Hindu law principles. 

Court’s Reasoning & Key Findings

1. Nemo Est Heres Viventis:

The Court relied on the principle: 

“Nemo est heres viventis” — A living person has no heir. 

Under Mohammedan Law:

• No one has vested interest in property of a living person. 
• Heirship arises only upon death. 
• Rights are several and distinct, not joint. 

2. No Concept of Ancestral Property in Muslim Law:

• “Right by birth” is foundation of ancestral property under Hindu law. 
• Muslim law does not recognize right by birth. 
• Hence, concept of coparcenary or ancestral property is foreign. 

The Court emphasized: 

• Muslim succession is individual succession. 
• Heirs take property as tenants-in-common in specific shares after death. 

3. No Joint Family Presumption:

Unlike Hindu law: 

• No presumption of joint family property. 
• Living together (commensality) does not create joint family in legal sense. 
• Property purchased by one member is presumed to belong to him alone unless proven otherwise. 

4. Theory of Representation Not Applicable:

• Hindu law allows representation (e.g., grandson representing deceased father). 
• Muslim law does not recognize this doctrine. 
• Each heir’s share is fixed and separate. 

5. Injunction Not Justified:

Since: 

• Plaintiff’s case was based on legally untenable concepts. 
• No prima facie case was established. 

The injunction restraining alienation was quashed. 

Final Verdict

• Appeal allowed. 
• Interim injunction set aside. 
• Court held that Muslim law does not recognize ancestral/joint family property. 
• Daughter cannot claim birthright in father’s property during his lifetime.