JUDGMENT :- This appeal arises out of a suit filed by respondents 1 to 4, minors, by their next friend against the two appellants as defendants 1 and 2 and against the 5th respondent, the mother of respondents 1 to 4 as defendant 3 for a declaration of their title to a certain property and for permanent injunction to restrain the two appellants from interfering with their possession. According to respondents 1 to 4, the property was purchased by their father Jamaruddin Mia on 1-2-55, from the second appellant Kadir Bux Mia and he obtained possession of the same and after his death, the second appellant again sold the very same property on 18-4-56 to the first appellant and caused their mother the 5th respondent to be an attesting witness and thereafter the two appellants began interfering with their possession and hence they had to file this suit for declaration of title and injunction. The appellants contested the suit and stated that they did not execute the sale-deed in favour of Jamaruddin Mia and further stated that they were in possession. During the pendency of the suit before the Subordinate Judge, respondents 1 to 4 filed an application for amendment of the plaint to add a relief for possession of the property on the ground that subsequent to the suit the appellants deprived respondents 1 to 4 of their possession. But unfortunately, the said application for amendment was rejected by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that the Court can mould its decree according to the changed circumstances that happened during the pendency of the suit and that an amendment to incorporate the change was redundant and unnecessary. Thereafter, he proceeded to try the suit and he came to the conclusion that the appellants had sold the property to Jamaruddin Mia on 1-2-55 and delivered possession and that respondents 1 to 4 were in possession of the land at the time of the institution of the suit and that the first appellant dispossessed them after the institution. He therefore decreed the suit giving the relief of declaration of title and also of possession, but stated that the deficit court-fee for the relief of possession should be paid by respondents 1 to 4. He therefore decreed the suit giving the relief of declaration of title and also of possession, but stated that the deficit court-fee for the relief of possession should be paid by respondents 1 to 4. In the appeal filed by the appellants before the District Judge, the District Judge agreed with the Subordinate Judge, regarding title and regarding the dispossession during the pendency of the suit. But he held that the amendment sought for by respondents 1 to 4 before the Subordinate Judge should have been allowed and he accordingly allowed the amendment in appeal and thereafter he proceeded to dismiss the appeal with costs. 2. Now in second appeal the appellants contend that the amendment should not have been allowed in appeal without re-opening the suit and without giving an opportunity to the appellants to file written statement in respect of the amendment and without framing fresh issues on the amendment and that the judgments of the lower Courts should therefore be set aside. 3. Both the lower Courts have stated that the Court can mould its decree in order to suit events which have taken place after the institution of the suit. Nobody need disagree with this statement. But the Court can do so only after allowing the amendment for the said purpose and after giving an opportunity to the defendants to make their contentions in respect of the amended plaint. Otherwise it will lead to miscarriage of justice. I cannot therefore allow the decrees of the lower Courts to stand as they are at present. There was no harm in allowing the amendment as done by the District Judge in appeal. But the appellants should have been given an opportunity to file their written statements on the amended plaint and the Court should frame the issues on the pleadings arising out of the amendment and the Court must give opportunity to both parties to let in evidence in respect of such issues. The decrees of the lower Courts are, therefore, set aside and the suit is remanded to the Subordinate Judge for allowing the appellants to file their written statements on the amended plaint and for framing fresh issues on the pleadings consequent on the amendment and for holding the trial of the suit on the new issues which arise after the amendment. 4. There is one other matter which requires the consideration of the Subordinate Judge. 4. There is one other matter which requires the consideration of the Subordinate Judge. The four respondents are the sons of the late Jamaruddin Mia and are claiming the property as heirs of the said Jamaruddin. There is another heir of the said Jamaruddin Mia, namely, the 5th respondent, his widow, who was the 3rd defendant in the suit. It is clear that the entire property therefore cannot belong to respondents 1 to 4. Hence, the Subordinate Judge must decide whether their suit claiming the entire property can be allowed or not. This is a matter which the appellants can agitate in the lower Courts after the remand of this suit. 5. The second appeal is, therefore, allowed. The decrees and judgments of the lower Courts are set aside and the suit is remanded to the Subordinate Judge for fresh disposal in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. Under the circumstances of this case both parties are directed to bear their own costs of this appeal. Appeal allowed.