The court cannot allow an amendment of the plaint which changes the entire complexion of the suit and introduces a new cause of action.

Kanhaiya Singh, J.

1. Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh, the proprietor of the Ramgarh estate, commonly known as the Ramgarh Raj, first executed agreements of lease in 1945 and 1947 in favour of the respondents, Ramgarh Farms and Industries limited, whom I shall call the Company, and in furtherance of those agreements subsequently executed a registered lease on 12th February, 1948, granting permanent raiyati interest in respect of vast lands belonging to the Ramgarh Raj on payment of salami. In 1953 the State of Bihar served upon the respondents a notice dated 14th December, 11953, issued under Sec. 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to enquire into the validity or otherwise of the alleged settlements of land by the proprietor of the Ramgarh Raj in favour of the Company.

Thereupon, on 19th February, 1954, the Company instituted Title Suit 12 of 1954 against the State of Bihar, substantially on the ground that by virtue of the lease the lands were demised to the Company for cultivation and reclamation of waste land, that thereby it acquired permanent raiyati interest, that raiyati interest had been specifically excepted by Sec. 4 (a) of the Act and did not vest in the State, and that Sec. 4 (h) of the Act is unconstitutional and invalid and, therefore, the notice issued thereunder is ultra vires, illegal, void and inoperative in law; and claimed the following reliefs : "(a) For a declaration that Sec. 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act is illegal, ultra vires and void.

(b) For a declaration that Sec. 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act is meaningless and unenforceable unless and until it is suitably amended.

(c) For a declaration that Raiyati interest cannot vest or cannot be deemed to have vested under Sec. 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act if they were created by the landlord before the date of vesting as provided in the Act.

(d) For a declaration that the Agreement for the creation of the Raiyati interest completed before 1st January, 1946 and comprising any Raiyati interest cannot be within the mischief of Sec. 4 (h) of the Act

(e) For a declaration that the expression settlement or lease of Sec. 4

(h) of the Act cannot include Raiyati interest land inasmuch as the interest of Raiyati and under-raiyats are expressly saved from vesting by Sec. 4 (a) of the Act.

(f) For costs.

(g) For other reliefs."

Subsequently, Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh and the other members of his family were also added as defendants in the suit. They filed written statements supporting the plaintiffs case.

2. On 30th November, 1954, the State of Bihar filed a written statement controverting all the allegations of the plaintiff. The defence of the State of Bihar, which is the virtual contestant, is that Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh, being a member of the Bihar Legislature since long, had full knowledge of the impending legislations for the acquisition of zamindaries in the State of Bihar, and for the purpose of delaying and obstructing the acquisition of his properties by the State and defeating the legislative enactments he floated a number of bogus companies and entered into farzi transactions with them, that the Company is one of such companies and for circumventing the provisions of law and obtaining increased compensation, he forged and executed bogus, colourable and sham agreements of lease and also registered leases in respect of his properties in favour of the Company, that they were not acted upon and despite the said leases, he continued in possession of the suit properties as a proprietor, that his properties have validly vested in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Act, that the provisions of the Act, more particularly Section 4 (h) of the same Act, are and have been held to be perfectly constitutional and a valid piece of legislation and that accordingly the suit is entirely misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

3. On 30th April, 1958, the Company filed a petiti