In a suit for partition, defendants can include properties in the partition suit even after trial commencement to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure proper adjudication.

Heard both sides

2. The respondents 1 and 2 in this civil revision petition filed the suit O.S.No.282 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Madurai, for partition of 1/4th share in the suit property and for rendering of accounts by the defendants 1 to 9 in the suit.

.3. The case of the respondents 1 and 2 was that the suit properties belonged to Late A.R.Sahasranam, father-in-law of the 1st plaintiff and defendants 4 to 8 and the father of the defendants 1, 10 and 11 and the grand-father of the 2nd plaintiff and defendants 2,3,5,6,7 and 9. He died intestate and therefore, the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 9 are entitled to a share in the property and the parties are enjoying the property. It is further stated that the said A.R.Sahasranam left a Will, dated 06.03.1961 in respect of Item Nos.1 and 3 and the 2nd item of the suit property was inherited by the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 9 and all of them are equally entitled to a share in the suit property and the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4th share. It is further stated that Late A.R.Sahasranam was running a business in the name of Sarathi Textiles and Venkateswara Chem Dyes, which were constituted as partnership firm and after the retirement of various partners, the husband of the first respondent Late A.S.Ramesh and the 2nd defendant were carrying on the partnership business and after the death of the husband of the first plaintiff, the 2nd defendant continuing the partnership business and by dissolution deed, dated 31.03.1989, the 2nd defendant retired from the partnership business after receiving his shares and the first plaintiff is carrying on the textile and Chem Dyes business as proprietrix and she is the absolute owner of the said business. The 1st item of the suit property is in possession of the defendants 1 to 9 and they let out the same for marriage functions and they are liable to account for the same. The 3rd item of the suit property is also getting monthly rent of Rs.5000/-and the defendants 1 to 9 are enjoying the same and they are liable to account for the same. The 2nd item of the property is the Company shares. According to the plaintiffs, they are entitled to 1/4th share in the Item Nos.1 and 3 and 1/5th share in the 2nd item of the suit properties and filed the suit for partition and the revision petitioners viz., the defendants 8 and 9 filed the statement disputing the claim of the plaintiffs and also denied the execution of the Will by Late A.R.Sahasranam. The revision petitioners also denied the right of the first plaintiff over the assets of Sarathi Textiles and Venkateswara Chem Dyes. It is admitted by the revision petitioners that the defendants 1 to 9 are residing in a small portion of the 1st item of the suit property and the remaining portion was not let out for marriage functions and therefore, they are not entitled to ask for the accounts. They also stated that the defendants 4 to 9 have already filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.411 of 1992, on the file of the II Additional Sub Judge, Madurai and the present suit is filed by the plaintiffs for partial partition and the business of Sarathi Textiles and Venkateswara Chem Dyes and the assets are also liable for partition as they are also joint family of the business. They also denied the allegations about the dissolution of the partnership of Sarathi Textiles and Venkateswara Chem Dyes and have contended that those properties are also to be included for partition and the suit for partial partition is not maintainable.

4. In the above suit, trial commenced and on the side of the plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined and evidence was closed on both sides and the case was posted for arguments on 04.09.2008 and at that time, the revision petitioners herein filed I.A.No.114 of 2008 to include some properties, which according to them also belongs to the joint family of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 9 and stated that during