Amendments to pleadings in partition suits should be liberally allowed to ensure justice and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, without assessing the merits of the amendment at the initial stage.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioners, who appeared through virtual mode.

2. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendants in the suit challenging the Order dated 08.11.2024 in I.A.No.1123 of 2024 in O.S.No.72 of 2015 passed by the learned Court of XV Additional District Judge, Krishna District at Nuzvid, which was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint in the suit for partition.

3. The respondents filed the suit for partition with respect to the plaint schedule five items in number, claiming 25 shares after division of the said properties into 49 full shares. The case of the plaintiffs was that the 1^st plaintiff-Pitta Kumari was the mother of the plaintiffs No.2 to 4. The 1^st plaintiff was married to Pitta Venkata Ratnam on 09.01.1974 as per Hindu religious rites and caste customs which prevailed in their community. While the marriage of the 1^st plaintiff was subsisting with Venkata Ratnam, he married 1^st defendant- Pitta Samadana Swarooparani. Defendants No.2 to 4 are the children from that marriage. Inter alia, it was claimed that joint family owned and possessed the properties as described in the plaint schedule, some of the properties were ancestral and some were acquired with ancestral nucleus. Plaintiffs No.2 to 4 and defendants No.2 to 4 and Pitta Venkata Ratnam were having 1/7^th equalshare in the plaint schedule properties. Pitta Venkata Ratnam also died intestate and the plaintiffs No.2 to 4 and defendants No.2 to 4 being class-I heirs were entitled to share equally. The 1^st defendant was only proforma party and has no share. The defendants in spite of notice did not cooperate for partition and so the suit was filed.

4. The defendants/petitioners filed written statement, inter alia, denying the plaintiffs’ case. They submitted that the 1^st plaintiff was not treated as legally wedded wife of Pitta Venkata Ratnam during his lifetime. The 1^st defendant was legally wedded wife, their marriage was solemnized on 26.05.1975 as per the Christian religion, tradition and as per their caste custom prevailing in their community. The marriage with the 1^st defendant was the first marriage. Inter alia, it was submitted that there were no properties in the hands of the defendants, as per the plaint averments. The extent of certain item of the schedule property was also disputed. The properties possessed by Pitta Venkata Ratnam during his lifetime were said to be his self-acquired properties and not ancestral properties in his hands. There was no ancestral nucleolus from the ancestral properties to purchase the plaint schedule properties by Pitta Venkata Ratnam. The notice sent by the plaintiffs was duly replied, denying the claim of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that there was no cause of action to file the suit. It deserved to be dismissed.

5. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1123 of 2024 for amendment of the plaint schedule properties so as to include some more properties and also to correct the extent of the properties item Nos.1 to 5, as mentioned in the plaint schedule. It was submitted that during the pendency of the suit, at the time of the trial, plaintiffs noticed that there were some more properties of Pitta Venkata Ramana, which could not be included and also that due to some mistake, typographical, the extent of the properties included in the plaint schedule was not corr