ANIL KUMAR P. Vs. YAMUNA S. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondents.

(2.) Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the Principal Sub Judge, Ernakulam on I.A.No.218 of 2017 in O.S.No.269 of 2015, the plaintiff has come up in this proceedings. The interlocutory application was for amendment of the plaint. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint. The suit is essentially one for partition and share of profits. Plaint schedule property belonged to deceased Velayudhan Pillai and his wife Meenakshi Amma. Velayudhan Pillai and Meenakshi Amma had three children, namely, Sivan Pillai, Nalini Amma and Ammini Amma. Plaintiff is the son of Ammini Amma. Defendants are the children of Sivan Pillai. Nalini Amma died issueless. It is averred in the plaint that the properties shown in plaint A, B and C schedule belonged to the family and they are liable to be partitioned.

(3.) The contesting defendants opposed the suit by filing a written statement. The suit was originally amended by adding certain reliefs. The defendants were allowed to file an additional written statement. Subsequently, another application for amendment was filed, which was withdrawn by the plaintiff finding that there were some defects in the application. Thereafter, Ext.P2 application for amendment of the plaint was filed by the petitioner. Six aspects are sought to be added by way of amendment as shown in Ext.P2 petition. As per Ext.P3 order, the amendments sought as Nos.2 and 4 were allowed. Amendments sought as Item 1, 3, 5 and 6 were declined.