The court cannot allow an amendment of the plaint if it would change the entire character of the suit and introduce inconsistent and contradictory allegations.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed the above petition for the amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking leave of this Court for amending the plaint. In the first instance, the plaintiff brought for the following reliefs against the two defendants:-

" (A) a decree for declaration may be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants to the effect that the agreement of sale dated 13. 3. 1994 between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, regarding transfer of the Defendants right, title and interest under the agreement dated 15. 10. 1992 executed between them M/s lnder Pratap Singh HUF for the allotment of the 11th floor of the proposed multi-storeyed building known as narain Manzil , 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi subsists between the parties to this suit;

(B) a decree for permanent injunction may be granted in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants to the effect that they have no right to transfer any of their right, title and interest in the agreement dated 15. 10. 1992 mentioned in prayer (a) above in favour of any person other than the Plaintiff".

( 2 ) TERSELY stated, the case of the plaintiff in the original plaint is this. That on 10. 8. 94 Shri S. S. Sandhu and his wife Mrs. Shiela Sandhu constituted a private trust called "satazo Trust" for the benefit of their children and grand children. The plaintiff is a real estate agent and he was acting as agent on behalf of the trust and various associate companies of the family of Shri H. S. Sandhu. On 15. 10. 92, Mrs. Sumitra Chisti, Trustee of the Trust applied to one M/s Inder Pratap Singh HUF for the allotment of the entire 11th floor approximately measuring 8000 sq. ft. in the proposed multi-storeyed building narain Manzil at 23 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. The transaction was finalised at particular rate. On 22. 10. 92, statement signed by the parties, as required under Section 269-UC of the Income-tax Act, 61 was sent to the appropriate authority. By order dated 18. 12. 92, the appropriate authority issued a certificate staring that it had no objection to the transfer for the apparent consideration of 3,08,00,000. 00 as per the agreement dated 15. 10. 92.

( 3 ) IN the middle of February 1994, Shri Sandhu and the members of his family wanted to dispose of the property and they were not successful in their endeavour. Ultimately, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the entire 11th floor for a total consideration of Rs. 4,84,00,000. 00 and an agreement was executed on 13. 3. 94. According to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. l,50,000. 00 was paid by way of cheque of 13. 3. 1994 to Shri H. S. Sandhu and his family and another cheque for Rs. 3,34,000. 00 was paid on the same date. On 21. 3. 94 Mrs. Sumitra Chisti filed a statement of transfer of immovable property before the appropriate authority for the apparent consideration of Rs. 4. 84 crores. On 18. 5. 94, the appropriate authority issued a letter that it had no objection to the transfer. Under the agreement of sale, the transaction was to be completed by the partics within a period of six months. In the meantime, prices of properties in Delhi shot up. The plaintiff had an idea of transferring his rights to his nominees as per the terms of the agreement dated 13. 3. 94. The defendants tried to wriggle out of the contract. The plaintiff was surprised to notice a Public Notice dated 15. 7. 94 in a daily called "evening News" and he issued a counter publication on 19. 7. 94. It is the case of the plaintiff that Shri H. S. Sandhu came to the office of the plaintiff and threatened him and wanted the plaintiff to give it in writing that he was withdrawing from the contract and he wanted back all the documents in the possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, he wanted to get a declaration of his rights under the 126 agreement. In para 13, he valued his suit in the following manner and paid Court fee thereon:- "the value of the suit for the purposes of Court fee and jur