S. JAGADEESAN, J.

The first defendant in O.S. No. 152 of 1989 on the file of the Sub-Court, Periyakulam, is the petitioner herein. The plaintiff/first respondent-bank filed the said suit for recovery of certain amount against the petitioner herein as well as respondents Nos. 2 to 24 herein. Originally, in paragraph 7 of the plaint it, has been stated that the partners of the ninth defendant-firm had deposited the title deeds in respect of items Nos. 1 to 4, 11 and 12 of "A" schedule with the plaintiff-bank as security for all the amounts due from the first defendant under various accounts. It is further stated that those properties are belonging to defendants Nos. 2, 3 and one late Pandian and late V. N. Surilimani, whose legal representatives had been added as defendants Nos. 16, 17, 20 and 8, 15, 21 to 23. The title deeds have been deposited with an intention to create security. It is further stated that the first defendant-firm, through all its partners, has deposited the title deeds in respect of items Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of "A" schedule creating an equitable mortgage. Accordingly, the fifth defendant-firm had deposited the title deeds in respect of the properties described as items Nos. 8 to 10 of "A" schedule.

The first respondent herein filed an application, I.A. No. 612 of 1993, for amendment of the plaint. By way of amendment, the first respondent seeking for substitution of paragraph 7 of the plaint. In the amended plaint, it is stated that items Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 of the properties described in the schedule belong to Surulivel Nadar, Surilimani, Thanigaivel, Pandian and Jayaprakash. Items Nos. 7, 11 and 12 belong to the first defendant-firm. Item No. 5 belongs to the fifth defendant and items Nos. 8 to 10 belong to the ninth defendant. The title deeds of the said properties have been deposited with the bank for the amounts due from the first defendant-firm and the deposit was made by late Surulivel Nadar for himself and on behalf of the other co-owners and the partners of the ninth defendant as they are duly authorised agents. The third defendant, one of the partners of the fifth defendant-firm, had deposited the title deeds of item No. 5. Further, the third defendant has deposited the title deeds of items Nos. 6, 7, 11 and 12 for himself and as duly authorised agent of the partners of the fifth defendant-firm. The said application for amendment was allowed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.Mr. V. S. Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the amendment sought for totally changes the original pleadings and brings forth a new case. Hence, the amendment ought not to have been allowed and as such the order of the court below cannot be sustained. In support of his contention, he also refers to the judgments reported in Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, Kumaraswami v. Nanjappa, 1978 AIR (Mad) 285, Kenchegowda v. Siddegowda and Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation.

On the contrary, counsel for the first respondent contended that the amendment sought for is only by way of explanation as to who had deposited the title deeds and as such the amendment do not change the original pleadings or the plea put forth by the first respondent. He also relied upon two judgments reported in Seshagiri v. Perumal 1983 (1) MLJ 62 and Palanisami v. Daivanaiammal 1983 (2) MLJ 547.

I carefully considered the contentions of both counsel. The deposit of title deeds in respect of items Nos. 1 to 12 of "A" schedule as mentioned in paragraph 7 of the original plaint is not denied. When the deposit of title deeds has been made in order to create an equitable mortgage, now by way, of amendment the plaintiff wants to explain as to who are all the individual owners in respect of those properties and who had deposited the title deeds and whether the title deeds have been deposited in the individual capacity of the owner or on behalf of the firm and whether such deposit ha