The court should consider subsequent changes in the law and alter its orders to render complete justice between the parties.

1. The petitioner is the 1st defendant in 0. S.309/54 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Hosdrug. The suit was filed by his brother for partition of joint family properties. The plaintiff alleged that the community of Embrandiries to which the parties belonged was governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law and that he was entitled to an equal share along with his brothers defendants 1 and 2. The 1st defendant on the other hand contended that the parties were Malayalee Brahmins constituting an Illom governed by the Madras Namboodiri Art.21 of 1933, and the properties if partible at all, could be partitioned only under the provisions of that Act, in which case the plaintiff is not entitled to 1/3rd share, and his wife and children should necessarily be impleaded. On this contention an issue was raised "whether the plaintiff and defendants were governed by Mithakshara Law or the Namboodiri Act of 1933."

2. The learned Munsiff found that the parties were governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law and granted a preliminary decree for partition of the plaintiff's 1/3rd share. The 1st defendant went up in appeal and the Subordinate Judge of Kasargode reversed the finding of the trial court and held that the parties were governed by the Madras Namboodiri Act of 1933. The suit was remanded for fresh disposal after impleading the wife and children of the 1st defendant.

3. Against this remand order the plaintiff appealed to this Court in C.M.A. 132/57, and the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge was reversed on the ground that Embrandiries were not included within the scope of the Madras Namboodiri Act of 1933. However, on the plea of the first defendant, that though not specifically mentioned in the written statement, he had a contention that in so far as the parties had been following the customs and usages of the Namboodiries, the customary law of impartibility which governed Namboodiris before the passing of the Madras Namboodiri Act must be held to apply to them also, this court was pleased to give the first defendant a chance to raise this contention specifically by amending his written statement. The case was remitted for fresh disposal raising the additional issue on that plea.

4. By the time the case came up for trial before the Munsiff, the Kerala Namboodiri Act (XXVII of 1958) came into force under the provisions of which Embrandiri (including Sivolli, Haviek and other Similar Brahmins known and recognised as Namboodiris) who follow the customs, manners and usages similar' to those of the Namboodiris and who are not Marumakkathayees were classified as Namboodiris. In view of this subsequent change in the law the first defendant sought permission to include in the amended written statement an alternative plea that the parties are Namboodiries under the provisions of the Kerala Namboodiri Act of 1958, and that the plaintiff and defendants along with the other members of the Illom, including the wife and children of the 1st defendant are entitled to claim partition as per provisions of S.13 of that Act. This prayer was objected to by the plaintiff on the ground that it was beyond the scope of the amendment permitted by this court in the remand order. The learned Munsiff upheld this objection, and the amendment regarding the alternative plea was disallowed The present petition is against the above order.

5. It is settled law that it is competent for the court, in fact it is incumbent on the court to lake into consideration the facts & events including legislation which have come into existence subsequent to the institution of the suit, so that the court may mould its orders to suit the altered conditions and render complete justice between the parties.

6. The question was considered at length in the ease of Nuri Mian v. Ambica Singh (I.L.R.1917 Calcutta 47) and the doctrine recognised that "Ordinarily the decree in a suit should accord with the rights of the parties as they stand at the date of its institution. But where it is shown th