Amendments should be allowed only for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, and introducing a different set of circumstances inconsistent with the original plea should not be permitted.

Puranik, J—The plaintiff-applicant brought a suit for possession of an abadi site on the ground that the defendants transferors had a non-transferable licence in respect of the same and the defendants could not acquire the site without the consent of the plaintiff lambardar. The defence was that the plaintiff's consent as lambardar was obtained, and in the alternative it was pleaded that as, the defendants were co-sharers in the village no consent was required and that Section 203, C.P. Land Revenue Act did not apply for a transfer in favour of a co-sharer.

2. The trial Court negatived both the defences and decreed the plaintiff's claim. The defendants appealed and again urged the same two defences. The lower appellate Court in its decision negatived the two defences. During the hearing of the appeal an application was filed by the defendants for permission to amend the defence and to withdraw the pleas that were raised in the trial Court. The lower appellate Court permitted the defendants to withdraw the pleas taken in the trial Court and to set up a defence that the transferors were owners of the house prior to the first settlement and therefore not licencees but proprietors and as such were entitled to transfer the site without reference to the lambardar. As this involved a fresh trial the case was remanded to the trial Court. The plaintiff-applicant feeling himself aggrieved by this decision comes up in revision.

3. His main contention is that the lower appellate Court had no jurisdiction to allow the defendants leave to amend the written statement as the amendment converted the defence into another of a different and inconsistent character. It was argued in the lower appellate Court and here also by the earned Counsel appearing for the non-applicants that they pleaded in the Court below that Section 203, C.P. Land Revenue Act was not applicable to the facts of the present case, that therefore, when they are stating that the transferors were the owners before 1865 they are only pleading that Section 208, C.P. Land Revenue Act is not applicable to the facts of the case, and that they were not raising any inconsistent defence, but adding one more ground to their defence that Section 208, C.P. Land Revenue Act was not applicable.

4. Reading the written statement of the defendants in the Court below I find that they pleaded that Section 203, Land Revenue Act was not applicable as it was a transfer in favour of co-sharers. It was thus a very specific plea, and if they now want to say that it is not applicable because of different circumstances altogether, they are raising a new defence.

5. It is not only a new. defence but an inconsistent one. It is rightly urged before me on behalf of the applicant that at the stage of the pleadings in the trial Court the fact that the transferors were licencees in the abadi and had no interest which could be transferred without reference to the lambardar was not disputed, and that it was therefore that it was pleaded that the consent of the lambardar was obtained and the transfer made and that it was pleaded in the alternative that when a transfer was made to co-sharers no consent was required as there was an agreement to that effect between the parties at the time of the imperfect partition. What is tried to be introduced by the amendment is a statement that the transferors had a transferable interest as they owned a site before the settlement of 1865. Admittedly this plea was not raised when the defendants went to trial in the trial Court.

6. This is a new plea, and it is stated in the application for amendment that the defendants were not aware of this circumstance when they made their pleadings in the Court below and they, therefore, wanted an opportunity to make that pleading at the stage of the appeal. The plea that the defendants-transferors were owners is inconsistent with the plea that they were licencees. Ordinarily, under a law, Court will not allow such an amendment as it invol