T. Amarnath Goud, J. - (1.)It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent is not the son of the deceased Kshitish Ghosh and under the garb of certain Wills the respondent is selling the properties which is in dispute before the trial court and the application which is said to be dismissed seeking to get the DNA tested, the petitioner is before this court. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent is alienating the properties to third parties and nothing remains for the petitioners who are the siblings if they succeed before the trial court.
(2.)Counsel for the first respondent who claims to be the son of the deceased Kshitish Ghosh and his spouse Fulu Rani Ghosh submits that in his school records, and birth certificate and all documents indicates that the respondent is the son of the deceased Kshitish Ghosh and relied upon a judgment by the apex court in Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B and Another (arising out of S.L.P (Cri) No.2648 of 1992 decided on 14/5/1993) which says that in a routine manner the blood test need not be conducted to prove the genuineness of the parents.
(3.)Heard both sides.
;