Per Shri Sher Singh—Shri Gomand appellant is also the plaintiff in the original suit and he has now come in appeal against the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 19-12-67 wherein the learned R.A.A while accepting the amend-ment in the original reply to the plaint by the defendant-respondent has remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision in the suit in accordance with law after taking due additional evidence, if any, from the two parties in view of the amendment in the written statement (para 9) given by the defendant-respondent. It has been pleaded before us by the appellant that by the aforesaid amendment in the original written reply by the defendant respondent, the whole nature of the suit has changed and therefore first appellant court has erred in remanding the case on this account. Reliance has been placed on a number of rulings viz. A.I.R. 1965 Manipur 53, 1959 Andhra Pradesh 448 and 1953 Orrisa 315. In reply it has been argued that only such amendments are not to be allowed where the whole nature of the suit and relief is changed and secondly it is pleaded that in the interest of law and equity, all amendments necessary to arrive at justice should be allowed. We would first like to examine the rulings on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We find that in case Samurailatpam Ningol Sanglakpam Ongbi Nungsitombi Devi vs. Sanglakpam Nimai Sarma (AIR 1965 Manipur 53), the Honble Court has observed that "the settled rule with regard to amendment of pleadings, is that a party is allowed to make such amendments as may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy or to avoid multiplicity of suits, provided there has been no new or inconsistent cause of action introduced, that no vested interest or accrued legal right is affected and that the application is not made mala fide and the amendment can be allowed without injustice to the other side. The above point has further been clarified and reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in case Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs. Kalgonda Patil (A.I R. 1957 S.C. 368) as follows :— "All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy two conditions (a) not working injustice to the other side and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. It is merely a particular case of this general rule that were a plaintiff seeks to amend by setting up a fresh claim in respect of a cause of action which since the institution of the suit had become barred by limitation, the amendment must be refused; to allow it would be to cause the defendant an injury which could not be compensated in costs by claim. The ultimate test therefore still remains the same can the amendment be allowed without injustice to the other side, or can it not." A similar view has also been held in case Jaldu Anantha Raghurama Arya Appellant vs. Jaldu Bapanna Rao respondents (1959 A. P. 448) wherein the provisions of 0. 6 R 17 C. P. C. have been further clarified and it was held that an amendment of pleadings should be liberally granted to enable the real question between the parties decided except when it occasions any injury to the opposite party. All the rules of procedure are devised only in the interests of proper administration of justice and they should be made to serve that end. Therefore the powers conferred on a court by O. 6, R. 17 C. P. C. should be liberally exercised. But an amendment claiming reliefs absolutely inconsistent with those in the original written statement would not come within the purview of O. 6, R. 17. C. P. C." In view of the above arguments and rulings, we have examined the record. Therefore the powers conferred on a court by O. 6, R. 17 C. P. C. should be liberally exercised. But an amendment claiming reliefs absolutely inconsistent with those in the original written statement would not come within the purview of O. 6, R. 17. C. P. C." In view of the above arguments and rulings, we have examined the record. The first appellate court has allowed the following addition by way of an amendment to para 9 of the written statement given by the defendant-respondent:— ^^Jherh jkeI;kjh us tks djsok iwj.k izfroknh ds lkFk fd;k Fkk oks djsok mudh tkfr esa ;qx ;qxkUrj ls gksrk vk;k gS rFkk djsok djus ij Hkh djsok djus okyh fo/kok dk mlds iwoZ ifr dh lEifr esa vf/kdkj jgrk gSA og djsok Bhd ekuk tkrk gSA Examining the above addition to para 9 of the original Jabab-dava, we find that by this amendment the facts of the case and thE defendants plea are no-where changed and do not become inconsistent with the original written reply wherein para 4 & 7 are material. This is a suit for declaration and partition and the plaintiff based his claim for a share in the property of the deceased Pooran on account of the defendant respondent MsT. Rampyari going in nata and thereby forfeiting her rights to the property of her deceased husband in accordance with their customs and usage. In the aforesaid amendment, the fact of custom and usage has only been reiterated without denying or changing the main plea by the defendant Mst. Rampyari that she was in possession of the property of the deceased both by adverse possession and as a successor claimant of the deceased husband. The rulings relied upon by the appellant and quoted above, in fact, go in favour of the first appellate courts view in accepting the amendment. The lower appellate court has while allowing the amendment accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision in view of the amended reply and by this order the present appellant-plaintiff is not being estopped from re-establishing his claim for succession to deceased Poorans share, We, therefore, see no grounds to interfere in the first appellate courts judgment and reject this appeal.