A Delhi court can indeed order DNA testing to help establish heirship in a property dispute, and this scientific tool has become an increasingly significant, though carefully regulated, part of resolving contested inheritance claims where biological parentage or lineage is genuinely in dispute. The court's authority to direct such testing derives from its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows the court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice, and courts have specifically exercised this power in property and succession disputes where establishing the biological relationship between a claimant and the deceased property owner is essential to determining rightful heirship shares.

However, this power is not exercised routinely or automatically simply because a party requests it, since DNA testing necessarily involves an intrusion into personal bodily autonomy and privacy, both of which are recognised as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty in a manner that Indian courts have interpreted to encompass privacy and bodily integrity. The Supreme Court has addressed this tension directly in cases such as Bhabani Prasad Jena versus Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women, and further in the constitutional privacy jurisprudence following Justice K.S. Puttaswamy versus Union of India, establishing that courts must carefully balance the need for DNA evidence against the individual's right to privacy and dignity, generally requiring that there be a strong prima facie case or genuine necessity before directing such testing, rather than allowing it to be sought as a matter of routine in every heirship dispute.

If a party in a Delhi property dispute genuinely refuses to undergo court-directed DNA testing without adequate justification, the court retains the power to draw an adverse inference against that party under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows the court to presume the existence of facts it considers likely given the common course of events and human conduct, including drawing an inference that the refusal stems from a fear that the test would reveal facts unfavourable to that party's claimed position. This means that while a person generally cannot be physically compelled to undergo DNA testing against their will, unjustified refusal can still carry significant evidentiary consequences that may effectively decide the heirship question against them. Given how sensitive and consequential DNA testing applications are in property disputes, both for the party seeking the test and the party who might be asked to undergo it, it is genuinely important to consult our legal experts at Aapka Legal Advice to understand your rights and strategic options in such a situation.

Heirship disputes involving questions of biological parentage require a delicate balance between establishing the truth and respecting fundamental privacy rights, making experienced legal guidance essential for both the party seeking and the party resisting DNA testing. The Top Property Lawyers in Delhi have handled property disputes involving contested heirship and DNA evidence applications, and our panel of retired judges is available to provide valuable insight into how Delhi courts typically balance these competing considerations.

In conclusion, a Delhi court can order DNA testing to establish heirship in a property dispute under its inherent powers, but only after carefully weighing the genuine necessity of such testing against the constitutional right to privacy under Article 21, with unjustified refusal potentially resulting in an adverse inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act rather than physical compulsion.