Only the mis-description of item No.3 property was sought to be corrected in the plaint and in the preliminary decree by the proposed amendment. One additional schedule was also sought to be incorporated in the plaint and in the preliminary decree on the basis of the report of the Advocate Commissioner. The above do not alter the nature and character of the suit and therefore the amendment sought for ought to have been allowed. 2. Ext.P6 order is set aside and I.A.Nos.1436/2012 and 1437/2012 to amend the plaint and the preliminary decree are allowed. It is made clear that the identity of the partible property can be deciphered with exactitude in the final decree proceedings. The court below will apply its mind and see whether the property being actually divided by metes and bounds are taken in by the documents of title. The parties are entitled to file objections in the final decree proceedings and sufficient opportunity to lead oral evidence shall also be afforded.
The Original Petition is disposed of.
Sd/- V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.
nj.