This is a petition by defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 155 of 1944 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Nellore, to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge allowing the amendment of the plaint in the following circumstances. The suit was instituted by the first respondent for recovery and possession of the properties described in the plaint schedule. The plaintiff’s case was based on two specific titles. One was on the footing that he had been validly adopted to one deceased Venkatacharlu to whom the suit properties admittedly belonged. The other was under his last will and testament, dated2 1st August, 1936, bequeathing in favour of the plaintiff the entire estate as a persona designata . In paragraph 7 of the plaint it was alleged that on 12th August, 1936, the deceased Venkatacharlu got a draft will prepared and on the 16th August, 1936, he gave a draft to the first respondent’s father for his approval and that exception was taken to it on the sentimental ground that it contained inauspicious reference to the early death of the plaintiff. In paragraph 12 there was an averment that the will of 21st August, 1936, propounded by the plaintiff contained recitals that the plaintiff had been taken in adoption and that the testator intended to have the Dattahomam and Upanayanam performed and that it also contained a direction to the first defendant that his widow should perform these acts. I or this title based upon adoption he relied upon certain facts set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaint. It is not necessary to deal with them in any detail. The contesting defendants in their written statement inter alia stated that the deceased Venkatacharlu, as a matter of fact, executed a will on 16th August, 1936, but that it was duly cancelled by him on the 21st August, 1936, for certain reasons. In spite of these allegations the plaintiff did not take any steps at that stage to file a statement in rejoinder nor did he choose to file an application for amendment. After the trial commenced and after the evidence for the plaintiff was over and the evidence on behalf of defendants was being taken an application for the amendment of the plaint was made. By this amendment the plaintiff sought to add the following paragraph 14 of the plaint:

“In the written statement of the first defendant it is contended that Venkatacharlu got a will written on 12th August, 1936, and executed on 16th August, 1936 and got it duly attested but that he cancelled on 21st August, 1936, for reasons mentioned in the written statement. Plaintiff submits that while it is true that Venkatacharlu executed a will on 16th August, 1936, he did not cancel it on 21st August, 1936 ,as pleaded by the defendant. The allegation in the written statement of the first defendant regarding the circumstances and reasons for the said cancellation by the said Venkatacharlu on 21st August, 1936, are all false. The handwriting of the alleged cancellation and the signature, dated 21st August, 1936, are not those of Venkatacharlu and are concoctions for the purpose of this suit. If, for any reason, the Court should hold that the will, dated 21st August, 1936, propounded by the plaintiff is not true, plaintiff is entitled to fall back upon the will, dated 12th August, 1936, as being the last will and testament of the late Venkatacharlu and support his claims for the reliefs in the suit-thereby. Even if it is held that the will, dated 12th August, 1936, was the last will and testament of the late Venkatacharlu and was cancelled the cancellation would not revoke the authority to adopt therein and any adoption made by the 1st defendant contrary to the direction therein would be invalid in law.”

This paragraph which was sought to be added comprises arguments as well as fresh allegations in support of the plaintiff’s claim. Firstly, it is sought to be contended that the alleged cancellation relied upon by the contesting defendants is not true. For this I do not think th