RANI Vs. CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 are the revision petitioners.

(2.) THE first respondent herein filed the suit for partition and the revision petitioners filed written statement stating that some of the properties purchased in the name of the first respondent and her husband were not included though they also belong to the joint family. Thereafter, no steps were taken by the revision petitioners to include those properties to the plaint schedule and after the plaintiff's side witness was examined in chief, the revision petitioners filed application to include certain properties purchased in the name of the first respondent/plaintiff and her husband to the plaint schedule and that application was dismissed and as against the same, this revision is filed.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the suit is for partition and in a suit for partition all the properties belonging to the family must be made available. It is the case of the revision petitioners that the properties which are sought to be included by way of amendment also belong to the joint family, though purchased in the names of the first respondent and her husband and those properties are also available for partition. As stated supra, in the written statement also, it is stated that two acres of property was purchased in the name of the husband of the first respondent and that property is also made available for partition. Though the first respondent denied the allegation that the properties were purchased out of joint family income and asserted that from their own income, the properties were purchased in their names, that can be decided only during trial and at this stage, the court need not have decided about the character of the properties.