VENKATASUBBAMMA Vs. PULIPULLA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.A. No. 568 of 1922. The only point argued in this second appeal is that the lower Courts erred in not granting relief to the plaintiff to amend his plaint by substituting the name of Venkatasubba Reddy in the place of Venkatasubbamma.

(2.) The District Munsif refused to allow the amendment and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The District Judge on appeal held that the District Munsif was right in not granting the amendment asked for. Mr. V.C. Seshachariar on behalf of the appellant urges that the amendment was necessitated by a new plea taken by the defendant at a late stage of the case. The suit was filed in 1919. The plaint was filed on 14 July, 1919. The first defendant's written statement was put in on 15 September, 1919. Issues were framed on 16 September, 1919. On behalf of the plaintiff, the Will of her father was filed in Court On looking into it the defendants raised the contention that the suit by the present plaintiff was not sustainable inasmuch as Venkatasubba Reddy was the executor of the Will and that, therefore, the executor was the only person competent to sue in respect of the defendant's debts due to the estate of the plaintiff's father. On this objection being raised an additional issue was framed. Issue No. 3, "Whether the plaintiff has title to sue for these debts and is this suit at her instance maintainable?"

(3.) The District Munsif held that the suit was not maintainable by the plaintiff inasmuch as there was a Will of her father under the Will Venkatasubba Reddy was appointed executor. Thereupon the plaintiff applied for leave to amend the plaint by substituting Venkatasubba Reddy as the plaintiff in the place of the plaintiff on record. The District Munsif after consideration of the matter held that he could not add a hew person as plaintiff as the claim against defendants had been barred before the time and he held that he could not allow an amendment in the circumstances of the case. Against this decree the plaintiff appealed and the District Judge, as I have already observed, dismissed the appeal.