Law:

Section:

(a) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)---.--- ---.----S. 372---.---Succession certificate, grant of---.---DNA test, conduct of--Scope---.---Trial Court granted succession certificate---.---Applicant had challenged grant of succession certificate on the ground that respondent was an adopted child of the deceased and was not entitled to the grant of succession certificate---.---Application was dismissed concurrently---.---Validity---.---Paternity of respondent was not challenged during the life time of deceased---.---Dispute for the first time was raised by the applicant after the succession certificate was granted in favour of respondent---.---Applicant was the real brother of the deceased and after the succession certificate was granted he had challenged the paternity of respondent---.---Nothing was on record which would prima facie make out a case in favour of applicant---.---Applicant and respondent had filed respective suits seeking declaration with regard to status of respondents as a legal heirs of the deceased---.---Proceedings under Succession Act, 1925 were of summary nature and such intricate questions could not be resolved in such proceedings---.---Court was bound to safeguard and protect the personal liberty of every person---.---DNA test could be ordered to be conducted under exceptional circumstances when there was a prima facie strong case---.---Neither blood samples could be taken nor a DNA test could be conducted in routine unless the person whose paternity had been challenged expressly had given his/her consent---.---Sufficient material had to be placed on record to make out a 'strong' prima facie case for conducting a DNA test---.---Applicant had not been able to make out a strong prima facie case nor was consent given by the respondent at any stage---.---No material irregularity or illegality had been pointed out in the impugned orders passed by the courts below---.---Revision was dismissed in circumstances---.---Applicant was imposed a cost of Rs.25,000/- for dragging the respondent into such frivolous litigation. Anwar Khan v. Fazal Manan 2010 SCMR 973; Sikandar Ali v. Robina Kousar 2006 CLC 1475; Mst, Akhtar Begum v. Muslim Commercial Bank…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492