The first respondent filed the suit for partition of the Joint family properties in the Court of the Civil Judge S. D. at Surat, being Special Suit No.
and from those who may be found to have the same on taking the accounts.
215 of 1961 allowing an application for amendment of the plaint and remanding the suit for retrial before the Civil Judge S. D. at Surat.
The appeal was allowed by the High Court by its judgment dated April 17, 1983.
It was alleged by the plaintiff that in paragraph 2 of the plaint, the words vus Ns and have and in paragraph 3 of the plaint the words ves Nhvs i.e. and are had crept in through inadvertence and mistake and the words should, therefore, be allowed to be deleted.
The trial Court, however, rejected the application for amendment of the plaint and thereafter dismissed the suit in view of the decision of the Full Bench in 1892 ILR 16 Bom 29 FB .
Defendant No.
The companytention of the defendants was based upon the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Apaji v. Ramachandra, 1892 ILR 16 Bom 29 FB in which it was held that according to the Mayukha law as applicable in Gujarat the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for partition against the defendants in the absence of assent of his father.
On July 28, 1959 the plaintiff made an application to the Trial Court for amending paragraph 3 of the plaint.
The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat, being First Appeal No.
Defendants Nos.
It is proper to take account of the same from them and to determine the total properties fit for partition and to partition the same according to law and to give me my share according to law from the property which the parties may be found entitled to possess.
And the rights and liabilities of all the members of the family may be determined and it is just to make partition of all the goods and properties of the joint family separately according to law.
14 who was joint with his own father Defendant No.
This suit is filed for the said purpose and for getting my share which according to law companyes to 1/3 X 1/7 X 1/5 1/105 separated by doing so and for getting the same from those defendants who may have the immovable and movable properties and cash etc.
215 of 1961.
7, 18, 24 and 26 arc the uncles of the plaintiff.
The companytesting defendants alleged that the plaintiff was number entitled to maintain the suit for partition of the joint family properties because he had number obtained the previous companysent of his father Defendant No.
7, 18, 24 and 26.
1 and his brothers Defendants Nos.
2 and 3 are the brothers of defendant No.
Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought on behalf of Defendants 1 to 6 and 24 to 39 against judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated April 17, 1963 in First Appeal No.
1 is the grandfather of the plaintiff and Defendants Nos.
5 of 1957, against his grandfather, his father, his uncles and others.
The plaintiff is the son of Defendant No.
