JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff in this case sues as the transferee of a reversioner under the Hindu Law. He bases his claim upon the allegation that his transferor, Makundi Singh, whom he has impleaded as a defendant in the case, was the nearest reversioner to the last male owner of the estate. He appended to his plaint a genealogical table showing the descent of Makundi Singh and the last male owner from a common ancestor, At a later stage of the suit, after issues had been fixed, but apparently before any evidence had been taken, the plaintiff presented a petition to the effect that daring the pendency of the suit, he had discovered a new piece of evidence, viz., a genealogical table of 1825, which had an important bearing on the case. He was prepared to show that, according to this genealogical table, Makundi Singh was the nearest reversioner, but the table differed in some respects from the table given at the foot of the plaint. The plaintiff accordingly asked for permission to amend his plaint by substituting this genealogical table for, that given at the foot of the plaint. The Court below has rejected this application and we are asked to set aside this order in the exercise of our