MUTHUSWAMI RAJA Vs. RAMU AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram declining to allow the petitioner to amend his written statement. The suit was by the defendant's daughter -in -law, the widow of his deceased son, for partition and separate possession of the properties which belonged to the joint family consisting of the petitioner, the plaintiff's husband and his brothers. The petitioner in his written statement gave a list of the properties which were his separate properties and admitted by implication the plaintiff's right to partition and separate possession in respect of the other properties in the plaint schedule. By the application for amendment which has given rise to this revision petition, the petitioner prayed that one other item be added to the properties which he claimed as his separate property. The learned Subordinate Judge considered that to allow the amendment would be to permit the petitioner to go back on his admission that that particular item belonged to the joint family and that the petitioner should not be allowed to do so. In that view, he dismissed the petition.

(2.) THE learned Subordinate Judge does not say that the petitioner's failure to include this particular item among the items of his separate properties was not due to a mistake. Any error due to a mistake could be permitted to be corrected by an amendment made during the pendency of the suit. Whether in any particular case the amendment would rectify a mistake would depend on the facts of that case.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent relies also on Elayappa Pillai v. : AIR1946Mad437 . That was a case where the amendment, if allowed, would change the cause of action. That again cannot apply to the facts of the present case.