to the family should be included. Though the respondents in their counter had contended that some of the joint family properties were sold by the petitioner and the respondents, they have not furnished the details of the properties which were sold in favour of the third parties. But it is clear from the counter filed by the respondents that there are some more family properties which are omitted to be included in the suit in O.S.No.103 of 2009. It is well settled that the amendment petitions are to be liberally considered and unless any prejudice is shown to be caused to the defendants, the application should be allowed. Since this is the suit for partition, I hold that inclusion of the properties belonging to the joint family are absolutely necessary for the just decision of the case. If this petition is not allowed, the suit for partition would fail for partial partition and it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The plaintiff has also contended that he came to know about the properties mentioned in the petition only during the course of cross examination. Thus, he has shown sufficient cause for not including all the properties jointly possessed by the family at the time of filing the suit. In the facts and circumstances, I hold that the orders passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli is liable to be set aside. Since the suit is of the year 2009, the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli is
