JUDGMENT : B.K. Patra, J. - This is an application in revision against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar allowing an amendment of the plaint. Satyabadi and Dasarathi were two brothers. Satyabadi had predeceased his brother Dasarathi leaving behind him a son named Bholi. Dasarathi died about 50 years ago leaving behind him his widow Apani Bewa. Bholi died in 1915 and the Plaintiff is his widow. On 15-2-1955, Apani Bewa sold the disputed properties to the father of Defendants 1 to 6 and Defendant No. 7, who, in their turn, had sold the same to Defendant No. 9. Shortly after the sale, Apani Bewa died. The Plaintiff then brought the suit for a declaration that she is the nearest heir of Dasarathi, that she is not bound by the Kabala which Apani Bewa had executed in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of Defendant No. 8 on the ground that she had no legal necessity for the sale and for recovery of possession. It was also alleged in the plaint that the execution of the Kabala is a fraud on registration because, although the disputed properties are situated within the sub-registry of Khurda, the document was registered at Pipili by including in the sale deed certain nonexistent properties alleged to be situated within the area of Sub-registrar of Pipli. The suit was resisted on the round that the Plaintiff is not a reversionary of Dasarathi because Bholi had left a sister who is alive and who is Dasarathi?s reversioner. It was also contended that there was no fraud on registration because Apani Bewa had some properties in Pipli which she had conveyed under the sale deed. The issues were framed in the suit on 10-4-1968. On 13-2-1969, the Plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint to delete there from the allegation relating to the alleged fraud on registration and to include therein an allegation that at the time of death of her husband he had also left behind him a son named Lokanath that Lokanath died in 1957 and she claimed the disputed properties also as the heir of Lokanath. 2. 2. The Defendants did not object to the deletion of the allegation relating to the alleged fraud on registration, but they opposed the other proposed amendment on the ground that if the prayer for amendment is allowed it would take away the effect of the contention raised by them in the written statement. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected this contention and allowed the amendment. Hence this revision. 3. It is well settled that an amendment of the pleadings is in the discretion of the Court which, however, is to be exercised according to the judicial principles and not in an arbitrary way or fanciful manner so as to cause injustice to the opposite side. Accordingly an amendment of the pleadings would be refused (1) when it is not necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy, (2) when the amendment, if allowed, would have the effect of wholly displacing the Plaintiff?s case,. (3) when the amendment has the effect of taking away the legal right already vested in the other side, and (4) when the amendment has the effect of introducing a totally different and inconsistent new case. Where, however, the amendment does not constitute a new cause of action or raise a different case, but merely amounts to a different additional approach to the same facts, the amendment should be allowed. See Bhima Panda v. Satyabadi Panda and Anr. ILR 1970 Cutt. 1222. 4. The Plaintiff sought the relief in the suit on the basis that she is the heir of Dasarathi who admittedly was the last owner of the disputed properties. Even after the proposed amendment she claims, the properties as Dasarathi?s heir. That basis of the claim is not changed. What she wants to add to the plaint now is another root to her title. In the original plaint she stated that she was heir of Dasrathi because she is the widow of Dasarathi?s brother?s son. By the proposed amendment, she still asserts that she is heir of Dasarathi, but Bays that she is such heir because after Apani?s death, her (Plaintiff?s) son Lokanath became entitled to the properties as heir of Dasarathi and on Lokanath?s death she became entitled to the same. In a case reported in Jois Bheemasenachar v. Thekkalokota Basian Reddy and Ors. AIR 1956 Mys. In a case reported in Jois Bheemasenachar v. Thekkalokota Basian Reddy and Ors. AIR 1956 Mys. 44, the Plaintiff?s suit, was one for a declaration of his title, for possession and for recovery of mesne profits. The amendment which he sought was to substitute a new source of title in place of another source of title which he had urged in the plaint. The title which the Plaintiff urged in the plaint in support of his claim was that his father had purchased the property from one Srinivasachar. The Plaintiff then applied for an amendment of the plaint. He stated that the suit schedule property actually belonged to his father?s maternal grandfather and Srinivasachar as co. owners, that in the division between them the property fell to Plaintiff?s father?s maternal grandfather?s share, that from him the property pas Fled to Plaintiff?s father?s mother and then to Plaintiff?s father?s family, that at the time of division between the Plaintiff?s father and his brothers the property fell to Plaintiff?s father?s share and that after his death, the Plaintiff became entitled to it. The trial Court rejected the application for amendment. But on revision, the High Court allowed the amendment on the ground that by the amendment the Plaintiff only sought to substitute a new source of title in place of another source of title which he urged in the plaint. In other words, the effect of the amendment was the shifting of one source of title to another and the amendment did not propose to introduce a new or in consistent case as an alternative to the existing one but the amendment was for deleting the source of title as put forward in the original plaint, and to substitute in its place another source of title. I am entirely in agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge. 5. Doubtless, on the amendment being allowed, the Defendants should be given an opportunity to file additional written statement and framing of additional issues may become necessary. It is in consideration of these circumstances that the learned Subordinate Judge in allowing the application for amendment directed that the Plaintiff should pay costs to the Defendants. 6. In the result, this application fails and is dismissed, but, in the circumstances, without costs. Final Result : Dismissed