Construction of plaint as a whole governs partition claims; mistaken pleading amendments may be allowed to avoid multiplicity of suits.

A plaint must be construed as a whole to determine the true nature of the relief claimed, and isolated phrases cannot control its character. On that approach, the pleading here was treated as seeking partition of joint family properties by metes and bounds, not merely severance of joint family status. An amendment deleting words inserted by mistake was also permissible under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC because it corrected an inadvertent pleading error, did not introduce a new or inconsistent case, and avoided unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. The amendment was therefore allowed and the suit remanded for retrial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint, read as a whole, disclosed a suit only for partition by metes and bounds and not a suit for severance of joint family status; (ii) Whether the amendment deleting the words inserted by mistake in the plaint was rightly allowed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the plaint, read as a whole, disclosed a suit only for partition by metes and bounds and not a suit for severance of joint family status.

Analysis: The pleadings had to be construed from their overall tenor and not by isolating a single sentence. The plaint contained averments indicating separation of the branches and a prayer for distribution of properties according to shares, together with a request for delivery of the plaintiff's share in the joint family properties. Read as a whole, the plaint showed that the plaintiff was seeking partition of joint family properties by metes and bounds rather than severance of status as such.

Conclusion: The suit was held to be one for partition by metes and bounds and not a suit for severance of joint family status.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment deleting the words inserted by mistake in the plaint was rightly allowed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: An amendment may be allowed where it corrects an inadvertent mistake and enables the real controversy to be decided without injustice. The proposed deletion did not introduce a new or inconsistent case, nor was limitation a bar. Refusing the amendment would have necessitated another suit, which the amendment rule seeks to avoid.

Conclusion: The amendment was rightly allowed and the suit was properly remanded for retrial.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both principal questions and the order remanding the suit for fresh trial was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint must be construed as a whole to ascertain the real nature of the relief claimed, and an amendment correcting an inadvertent pleading error may be allowed when it serves the interests of justice and avoids multiplicity of proceedings.

---