9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (8) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andfather, his father, his uncles and others. The plaintiff is the son of Defendant No. 14. Defendant No. 1 is the grandfather of the plaintiff and Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the brothers of defendant No. 1. Defendants Nos. 7, 18, 24 and 26 are the uncles of the plaintiff. The contesting defendants alleged that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit for partition of the joint family properties because he had not obtained the previous consent of his father--Defendant No. 14 who was joint with his own father--Defendant No. 1 and his brothers--Defendants Nos. 7, 18, 24 and 26. The contention of the defendants was based upon the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Apaji v. Ramachandra, ILR(1892) Bom 29 in which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranches. But the different properties and businesses and cash and their income have continued to be in the management of different members on behalf of all. Although the separation of the three original branches and between the members of the branch of Nichhalbhai out of the original three branches is made by the ancestors but the partition of goods and properties is not made separately and mutually between each branch or between the members of branches according to the shares. But different persons of the family keep different properties and businesses of the family in their own possession and management and manage the same. And the income of the property and the businesses which are in their respective possession and management has remain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintiff was merely a suit for partition by metes and bounds and not a suit for severance of the Joint family status. On behalf of the appellants Mr. Purshotam Trikumdas submitted that the High Court had not correctly interpreted the plaint. The learned Counsel referred to the sentence We were and are members of the Joint and undivided family of paragraph 3 of the plaint and said that this was a clear statement that the plaintiff had not effected severance of his status from the joint and undivided family. We do not think there is any justification for this argument. On the question of interpretation of the plaint it is important to consider all the averments made by the plaintiff in paragraph 3 together and the other connected paragraphs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne itself to the force of a particular expression but to collect the intention from the whole instrument taken together. Having, therefore, regard to the statement of the plaintiff in all the paragraphs of the plaint and interpreting the plaint as a whole we are satisfied that the High Court was right in holding that the suit was not a suit brought for severance of joint family status but was a suit merely for partition by metes and bounds. 4. We shall then proceed to consider the next question whether the High Court was right in allowing the application of the plaintiff for amending the plaint by deleting the words vus Ns (and have) in ves Nhvs (i.e. paragraph 2 and the words 'and are')' in paragraph 3 of the plaint. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d are') in paragraph 3 of the plaint have been inserted on account of some mistake or misapprehension on the part of the plaintiff and it was, therefore a proper case in which the Court allowed the plaint to be amended. The reason is that if the amendment is refused the plaintiff may have to bring another suit and the object of the rule for allowing amendments to the plaint is to avoid multiplicity of suits. The present case falls within the principle laid down by this Court in L. J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co., [1957]1SCR438 ). In that case the appellants had filed a suit for damages for conversion against the respondents on the allegations that the respondents were the agents of the appellants, that the appellants h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
