The main legal point established in the judgment is that while a suit for partial partition should generally include all joint properties, there are exceptions to this rule based on practical considerations and the larger interest of justice.

1. That a partition suit is bad for partial partition is like a slogan, more true in part than a wholly correct statement of the law.

2. This Civil Revision Petition springs from an order directing the plaintiff to amend the plaint by including some items of properties mentioned in written statement of the 1st defendant, entailing the dismissal of the suit if there is failure to carry out the direction, on the score of partial partition. The plaintiff brought a suit for partition of three items of properties in which he and defendants 1 and 2 were interested, The parties were members of a larger tarwad which divided itself by Ext. P1 partition died into several 'sakhas, the parties to the present suit constituting the 8th 'sakha'. The case of the plaintiff is that item 1, in which the tarwad house is situated and which is included in C schedule to Ext. P1, has been directed to be enjoyed in a special manner in the family partition. Item 2, which is included in the K schedule to Ext. P1, had been allotted to a member of the tarwad, by name Krishna Menon, to be enjoyed for life by him with a vested remainder in the 8th sakha consisting of the parties to the present suit. Item 3 also has special features. What was emphasised was that these three items, included in the A schedule to the plaint, were not being enjoyed on a common basis with any other items as a tavazhi and, at a certain stage, counsel for the revision petitioner went to the extent of stating that the parties to the suit were not holding the suit properties as joint family property but only as co-owners, a position repudiated by the respondent. The 1st defendant, in his written statement, raised, inter alia, the platitudinous contention that the suit was bad for partial partition. He gave a list of properties in his written statement, which are J schedule properties in Ext. P1, and claimed that they were also joint family property of the 8th sakha available for division, without whose inclusion in the plaint the suit was liable to be dismissed. The learned Subordinate Judge raised issues 14 and 15, the former of which covered the question of the portability, as tavazhi asset, of the items included in the written statement and the latter related to the maintainability of the suit in view of the plea of partial partition. On both these issues, the court upheld the contention of the defendants and directed the plaintiff to seek partition of the J schedule item in Ext. P1 partition deed, by amending the plaint. This order is attacked before me by the plaintiff on various grounds.

3. The revision petitioner contends that the J schedule ileus in Ext. P1 are cot the properties of the 8th sakha of the parties to the present suit but are trust properties. It is seen from a perusal of the relevant recitals that the members of the tarwad had provided for performance of certain religious rituals out of the income from the J schedule properties. It was also stipulated that one Gopala Menon, a senior member of the tarwad, should supervise the due performance of these ceremonies and, in case of default, should himself get them conducted and recover the costs. There is also a provision for acquiring properties out of the surplus income, if any, in the name of the 8th sakha but expressly stating that the acquisition is being made out of the surplus income of the J schedule properties. While the plaintiff seeks to spell out of these recitals a religious trust, the defendants decoct a more secular inference, namely, that the properties vest absolutely in the 8th sakha which is obligated to perform, out of the income, certain rites and duties, costing around Rs.270. I do not think it necessary to decide this dispute here in view of the fact that the suit itself so I propose to to hold presently is not bad for partial partition and the proper course for the defendant is to institute a separate suit for partition of the J schedule item wherein the true character of the property