C. Subba Reddy vs. Smt. P.V. Chandrammama

Held

The Court held that the suit was filed for partition, and the plaintiff asserted that the plaint schedule properties were joint family properties. Whether these properties, including 'Varun Enterprises', are indeed joint family properties or not is a matter to be decided during the trial. The Court found that it was too early to decide the nature of Varun Enterprises at this interlocutory stage. After evidence is presented, the Court will determine if Varun Enterprises is a joint family business or a proprietary concern. The trial Court had considered all these aspects before allowing the amendment application. The reasons assigned by the trial Court were neither illegal nor perverse, and therefore, no interference was warranted. The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, the 2nd defendant in a partition suit (O.S.No.143 of 2018), filed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order dated 22.10.2022 passed by the Principal District Judge at Ananthapuramu. The order allowed an interlocutory application (I.A.No.1592 of 2022) filed by the plaintiff (1st respondent) under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the plaint. The plaintiff sought to include 'Varun Enterprises', a business run by the 2nd defendant, in the B-schedule of movable properties for partition. The plaintiff claimed this omission was a bonafide mistake. The 2nd defendant opposed the amendment, arguing that Varun Enterprises was a proprietary concern, not a joint family business, and that the plaintiff had not pleaded jointness of the business. The GST registration for Varun Enterprises was dated 17.07.2018, and a renewal was done on 23.03.2021. The suit was filed in 2018.

Key Issues

1. Whether the trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to include 'Varun Enterprises' in the B-schedule of properties for partition, considering the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and the nature of the property sought to be added. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the plaintiff failed to aver jointness of the business and made only a bald assertion that Varun Enterprises belonged to the joint family. He argued that there was no pleading to show that the 2nd defendant was running the business as Karta of the joint family. The petitioner highlighted that Varun Enterprises was a proprietary firm, evidenced by its GST registration and renewal, and that its existence was known at the time of filing the suit, yet it was not included. He further stated that stock worth Rs. 1.00 crore was not available. Revenue/State's arguments: No arguments were recorded for the respondents.