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

Excerpt:
- maximssections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [v.v.s. rao, n.v. ramana & p.s. narayana, jj] ghee as a live stock product held, [per v.v.s. rao & n.v. ramana, jj - majority] since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. the first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. the shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. by simmering unsalted butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. so to say, milk is converted to dahi, then butter......orderc.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.....

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.