Gender and Inclusive Justice Case: Narayanlal Manandhar vs. Shakti Kumar Basnet, NKP 2077 B.S No. 9, DN: 10573
Case: Partition of Property
Plaintiff: Narayanlal Manandhar
Defendant: Shakti Kumar Basnet
Decision Number: 10573
This case is related to the right of a child to inherit family property, proof of parentage, and the evidentiary value of DNA testing and official documents.
Facts of the Case:
Shakti Manandhar claimed that he was the son of Ravi Manandhar, also known as Sharad Chandra Manandhar. Ravi was the middle son of Ishwor Manandhar. The defendants were Ravi’s elder and younger brothers and his sisters.
Ravi had left the family home and started living separately in Lalitpur. He was married to Rajyudevi Basnet, and Shakti was born from that relationship. Rajyudevi died when Shakti was still young. Ravi then looked after Shakti, paid for his education and lived with him until Ravi’s death.
After Ravi’s death, Shakti asked the defendants to give him his father’s share of the undivided family property. The defendants refused and denied that he was Ravi’s son. They pointed to Rajyudevi’s pension record, where Shakti was named “Shaktikumar Basnet,” using his mother’s surname. A DNA test between Shakti and one of the defendants also did not show the same paternal family line.
Shakti relied on several documents that named Ravi as his father. These included his citizenship certificate, school records, voter records and relationship certificate. The main dispute was whether the DNA report and the use of his mother’s surname were enough to reject the other evidence.
Plaintiff’s Claim:
Shakti said that Ravi was his father and that he was the only person entitled to inherit Ravi’s share. He relied on his citizenship certificate, school records, voter records, relationship certificate and other documents. He also stated that Ravi had accepted him, raised him and supported his education. He asked for one-fifth of the family property.
Defendants’ Argument:
The defendants said that Ravi had never married and had no son. They claimed that they had never known Shakti as Ravi’s child. They relied on the DNA report and on the mother’s pension record, where Shakti’s name appeared as “Shaktikumar Basnet,” using his mother’s surname. They argued that Shakti was not their heir and should not receive any property.
Legal Issues:
- Whether Shakti was the son of Ravi Manandhar?
- Whether using his mother’s surname disproved his relationship with Ravi?
- Whether the DNA report alone was enough to decide the issue of parentage?
- Whether Shakti was entitled to a share of the family property?
Decisions of the Different Courts:
Kathmandu District Court:
The District Court mainly relied on the DNA report. It held that Shakti’s relationship with Ravi was not proved. The Court dismissed his claim for partition. There was no criminal punishment because this was a civil property case.
Patan Appellate Court:
The Appellate Court reversed the District Court’s decision. It accepted the official documents and other evidence showing that Ravi was Shakti’s father. It held that Shakti was an heir and awarded him one-fifth of the family property.
Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Court’s decision. The Court noted that Ravi had accepted Shakti as his son during his lifetime. He had raised him, paid for his education and lived with him. Official records also named Ravi as Shakti’s father.
The Court held that using the mother’s surname, “Basnet,” did not disprove Shakti’s relationship with his father. A woman may use her own surname, and a child may use the surname of the father, mother or both.
The Court also held that a DNA report is important expert evidence, but it is not always conclusive. It must be considered together with other reliable evidence. The District Court had made an error by relying only on the DNA report and ignoring the other evidence.
The Supreme Court confirmed Shakti’s right to receive one-fifth of the family property. The defendants’ appeal was dismissed.
Principle Established:
- A DNA report is not always conclusive proof of parentage.
- It must be considered along with other reliable evidence.
- A child’s use of the mother’s surname does not by itself disprove the child’s relationship with the father.
- Official records and the conduct of the parties can prove a parent-child relationship.
- A child accepted and raised by the father during his lifetime should not be denied inheritance only because of a later DNA report.
