JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J. - The revisional application is directed against an order dated June 9, 2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Howrah in Title Suit No.55 of 2016.

2. By the order impugned, the learned court below rejected an application for amendment of the written statement filed by the added defendant no.4. The defendant no.4 is the lessee in respect of a portion of the suit property which forms a part of the joint undivided property. During the pendency of the partition suit, some property which were included in the hotchpotch, had been transferred inter se between the parties. As a result of which, the landlord and/or the lessor of the defendant no.4 changed. This aspect was sought to be brought in by the defendant no.4, by filing an application for amendment.

3. The application for amendment was filed in order to incorporate the factum of transfer of 1/3rd share of Khandobala Dasi to the Bandopadhyays, by virtue of a deed of sale. On account of subsequent transfers, the shares were considerably reduced.

4. The defendant no.4 was impleaded as a party by the plaintiff. Assumption is that the defendant no.4 was a necessary and a proper party according to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant no.4 has the right to rebut such assertion of the plaintiffs and also raise the further pleas. He had the right to set out his case and also elaborate and clarify his defence by incorporating new facts, especially with regard to subsequent transfers his position as a lessee on account of such transfer etc.

5. Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate for the plaintiffs/opposite parties submits that the lessee does not have any right to challenge the title of the lessor or the title of the co-sharers of the lessor. The right of the lessee would not be affected by the aforementioned transfers of the property which was sought to be incorporated by way of an amendment.

6. Heard the parties. Whether the quantum of property sought to be partitioned stood reduced or whether by virtue of the sale by Khandobala to the Bandopadhyays, some property was taken out from the joint property and had become exclusive properties of the Bandopadhyays and hence not amenable to partition are matters on merit. Genuineness and correctness of the statements made in the amendment application shall be decided at the trial, on evidence. By way of an amendment, the defendant no.4 sought to introduce a case that the subsequent tranfer by Khandobala Dasi to the Bandopadhyays amounted to sale of an exclusive demarcated area, which would not fall within the purview of the partition suit and which resulted in alteration of the shares of the co-sharers.

7. In Revajeetu Builders and Develpers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and ors. reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84, Paragraph 26, of which is quoted below:-

"26. In the same judgment of Usha Balashaheb Swami [(2007) 5 SCC 602], the Court dealt with a number of judgments of this Court and laid down that the prayer for amendment of the plaint and a prayer for amendment of the written statement stand on different footings. The general principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute the cause of action or the nature of claim applies to amendments to the plaint. It has no counterpart in the principles relating to amendment of the written statement. Therefore, addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement would not be objectionable while adding, altering or substituting a new cause