Judgment The plaintiff sued for recovery of possession of a house and for an injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from interfering with her exclusive possession of the suit properties. She claimed that she was entitled to exclusive possession of the properties by virtue of certain provisions in a will left by her deceased husband. The defendants contended that under the terms of the will the plaintiff was not entitled to exclusive possession of the properties. Thereupon the plaintiff sought leave in the lower Court to amend the plaint by adding a paragraph to this effect. After the death of the testator, the plaintiff spent more than Rs.500 towards his funeral expenses. There was an agreement among the plaintiff, the first defendant and the other co-sharers that the plaintiff should be entitled to exclusive possession of the house in order that she might recoup the amount she had spent towards the testator’s funeral expenses. The learned District Munsif refused to grant permission to the plaintiff to amend the plaint. Therefore, she has come to this Court. Mr. Vaidyanatha Ayyar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, argued strenuously that the defendants would not suffer any injustice if the amendment were allowed, and that this is a case in which any hardship, which the defendants might be supposed to suffer could be compensated by costs. He also read a number of cases in which leave to amend the plaint had been granted. The decisions on the subject are legion and nobody can possibly reconcile them all. Nevertheless the rule on the matter is clear and it is set out on page 601 in Mulla’s latest edition of the Civil Procedure Code. It runs as follows:- “ Where a plaintiff bases his claim on a specific title he may not be allowed to amend the plaint so as to base it on a different title. But this is subject to rule 1 and when the title by which the plaintiff claims remains unaltered, the plaint will not be allowed to be amended, if it completely alters the cause of action.” It seems to me that this rule is applicable to the facts of this case. By an amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff wants to make out that her possession of the property is analogous to that of an usufructuary mortgagee while her original case was that her possession was as legatee. By an amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff wants to make out that her possession of the property is analogous to that of an usufructuary mortgagee while her original case was that her possession was as legatee. The order passed by the lower Court is correct and this petition is dismissed with costs. K.C. ----- Petition dismissed.