RITU SACHDEV Vs. ANITA JINDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th Feb., 1980 of Mrs. P. Khastgir, J, dismissing the appellant's application made in the court of the first instance for amendment of the plaint filed in Suit No. 576 of 1'979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said suit') and for addition of party. In the said application the appellant also prayed for fresh leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent against the added defendant.

(2.) The appellant as the plaintiff in the court of the first instance filed the said suit for partition and declaration of the shares in the estate of her father, Baldev Raj Sachdev, as also for a declaration that the partnership business of Printers Emporium, created by the Deed dated 1st September, 1975 was illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff and for other reliefs as would fully appear from the plaint.

(3.) The appellant's father, Baldev Raj Sachdev, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said deceased') died on the 17th August, 1975 leaving his widow Bimala Sachdev, the respondent No. 2 in this appeal and three daughters namely, the appellant Ritu Sachdev, the respondent No. 1 Anita Jindal nee Sachdev and the respondent No. 3 Vanita Kuckreja nee Sachdev as his heiresses and legal representatives under the Hindu Law. According to the appellant, she was born on 21-10-60 and, therefore, \vas a minor at the time of the death of her father, the said deceased. In the Schedule to the plaint, the appellant has stated various properties belonging to and comprising the estate of the said deceased. They are premises No. 53, Block 'D', New Alipore, Calcutta, monthly rent due and payable by the tenants of the said property, tenancy of the shop-room at premises No. 14/2, Old China Bazar Street, Calcutta and of the godown at No. 22, Sukeas Lane, Calcutta and No. 52A, Block 'D', New Alipore, Calcutta, assets and stock-in-trade of the firm of Printers Emporium of which the said deceased during his lifetime was the sole owner, several cars and other furniture and fixtures as fully stated in the said schedule to the plaint. The said premises Nos. l4/2, Old China Bazar Street and 22, Sukeas Lane are within the original side jurisdiction of this Court. New Alipore, properties are outside the said jurisdiction. In the plaint the plaintiff has claimed for partition of the proper- ties left by the said deceased It is also stated in the plaint that after the death of the said deceased at the instance of defendant No. 1 Anita Jindal and her husband one Satish Kant Jindal, the said business of the Printers Emporium was converted into a partnership with three partners namely, the appellant's mother and her two sisters. Tha appellant was admitted to the benefit of the said partnership. In the plaint, tha appellant has claimed a declaration that the said partnership namely Printers Emporium created by the deed dated 1st September, 1975 and the power of attorney of the same date given to the husband of the respondent No. 1 are illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff or the estate of the said deceased. The said suit was filed after obtaining leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was obtained on tha basis that the immoveable properties being the tenancy rights in respect of the said shoproom and godown at No. 14/2.. Old China Bazar Street and No. 22, Sukeas Lane respectively are within tha original side jurisdiction of this court.