Napier, J.

1. The appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff to redeem a kanom. That was the original from of the suit although it is true that in his plaint he claimed to also recover the land on -the strength of title.

2. The defendants pleaded that they were Anubhavam tenants to the knowledge of the plaintiff.

3. In the course of the trial the plaintiff applied to, the District Munsif for leave to amend his plaint by accepting the position that the defendants were Anubhavam tenants and claiming his right to recover the property on the ground that his title as jenmi has been denied by the defendant, which denial operated as forfeiture.

4. The first court had, declined to grant the amendment. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge allowed the amendment but he allowed it on very narrow grounds which are to be found at the bottom of page 28. He said By the amendment sought to be made, plaintiff only wanted to make his position clean There was no change in the nature of the suit. Even without any specific allegation about forfeiture in the plaint the plaintiff would have been entitled to argue that in the strength of his title he was entitled to get a decree for possession inasmuch a