Chilakani Venkata Rao Vs. Ch. Lakshman Rao and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the act. thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in section 2(xv) of the act. whatever products are declared as such by the government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the act. consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under section 3(1) read with section 3(3) of the act on them it is competent for the government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [per p.s. narayana, j,(dissenting)]if livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. in view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the..........and so their written statements also would be in the nature of plaints. so, if the revision-petitioner felt that the property alienated by the plaintiffs to nataniel also has to be taken into consideration for deciding the question as to what are the properties that are to be partitioned between the parties, he should have mentioned that fact in he written statement. if he had not done so, he should have sought leave of the court to amend his written statement for inclusion of the property alienated to nataniel in the properties to be partitioned. as rightly observed by the trial court, question of a defendant seeking leave to amend the plaint by inclusion of certain properties in the plaint schedule does not arise, as plaint contains the case of plaintiffs but not that of the defendant. so, it is only the plaintiff that can seek amendment of the plaint under rule 17 of order vi cpc. therefore, i find no merits in this revision.5. hence, the revision petition is dismissed. no costs.

Judgment:

ORDER

C.Y. Somayajulu, J.

1. In a suit for partition filed by the brothers of the revision-petitioner, who is the first defendant, filed a petition to implead one Nataniel as a party to the suit on the ground that his brothers alienated some property to Nataniel and so he is a necessary party to the suit and that petition was allowed and that order was confirmed by this Court in a revision. Thereafter, revision-petitioner filed a petition seeking amendment of the plaint for inclusion of the properties alienated to Nataniel, which was dismissed on the ground that the defendant in a suit cannot seek amendment of the plaint. Hence, this revision.

2. The contention of the learned Counsel for revision-petitioner is that since the transferee of the property belonging to the family was ordered to be impleaded as a party to the suit, if the properties alienated to him are also included in the plaint schedule, it would be convenient for the parties to work out the equities at the time of final decree and so the Court below was in error in dismissing the petition.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs.

4. It is well known that in a suit for partition all parties, who have a share in the properties to be partitioned, would be in the position of plaintiffs and can take all the pleas, which a plaintiff can take, and so their written statements also would be in the nature of plaints. So, if the revision-petitioner felt that the property alienated by the plaintiffs to Nataniel also has to be taken into consideration for deciding the question as to what are the properties that are to be partitioned between the parties, he should have mentioned that fact in he written statement. If he had not done so, he should have sought leave of the Court to amend his written statement for inclusion of the property alienated to Nataniel in the properties to be partitioned. As rightly observed by the trial Court, question of a defendant seeking leave to amend the plaint by inclusion of certain properties in the plaint schedule does not arise, as plaint contains the case of plaintiffs but not that of the defendant. So, it is only the plaintiff that can seek amendment of the plaint under Rule 17 of Order VI CPC. Therefore, I find no merits in this revision.

5. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.