SOMASUNDARA BHATTAR Vs. MUTHU THEVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is plaintiff in O.S. No. 129 of 1922 Madura Sub-Court. He sued to set aside a sale-deed alleging inter alia that 2nd defendant took advantage of his youth. The plaintiff has just attained his majority and the defendants have in collusion cheated him.

(2.) After filing this plaint, he had reason to believe that he was a minor at the time of the sale, and applied for leave to amend his plaint accordingly.

(3.) Leave has been refused by the Additional Subordinate Judge in the order appealed against, dated 11 April, 1923, on the grounds that the application was not bona fide and that amendment could not be allowed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil P. C., 1908. There was two months delay between plaintiff's learning his age and making this application, but I do not think that this interval suggests want of good faith.