JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, recommending that the revision filed against the order dated March 28, 1972 passed in a case under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act, may be rejected. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Opposite party No. 1 Ram Dayal had filed a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act arraying State of U.P. through the Collector, Farrukhabad, Municipal Board, Farrukhabad as well as the present revisionists as defendant claiming to have acquired Sirdari rights in certain plots by virtue of continuous adverse possession for more than 20 years. The revisionists contested the suit by claiming that originally Ali Mohammad Khan son of Shafi Mohammad khan was the Sirdar of the land in dispute and after his death about 4 years back the disputed plots devolved upon them. After issues were framed and the evidence of the plaintiff-respondent had been recorded, the revisionists filed an application praying for permission to amend the written statement as under :- "At the end of the present paragraph 10 of the written statement the following be added :- Ali Mohammad Khan father of defendants 4-7 being a chronic patient of Tuberculosis of lungs and Asthma was physically infirm to carry out cultivation work himself and he, for his assistance, had taken Ram Dayal Plaintiff as his 'Sajhidar' only. The plaintiff had absolutely no right of his own in the land in question." 4. The court has rejected the application for amendment on the ground that this amendment would change the very nature of the defence. This order has been challenged in the present revision. 5. Order VI, Rule 17, CPC provides as follows :- "17. Amendment of pleadings : The court may at the any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties." 6. It will thus be seen that the above rule does not place any restriction on the power of the court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. It will thus be seen that the above rule does not place any restriction on the power of the court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. Further the court is bound to allow all such amendments as may be necessary for purpose of determining the question in controversy. 7. A perusal of the record shows that even the plaintiff-respondent had admitted in paragraph 1 of the plaint that Ali Mohammad Khan (father of the revisionist) was the tenant of the plots in question. They had merely claimed rights on the basis of continuous adverse possession. Thus, how and when the possession of the plaintiff-respondent commenced is an important question for determining the case. The amendment sought by the revisionists is thus necessary for purposes of determining the real question in controversy. The learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to Sri Niwas and another v. Sarwan and others 1965 RD 310 in which it has been held that if the trial court refuses the permission for adding the relief of possession and then proceeds to dismiss the suit for a declaration and injunction on the ground that the plaintiff has not asked for possession, and the lower appellate court instead of applying its mind to the question whether the trial court's refusal to permit the amendment of the plaint was proper confirms that refusal on ground which are irrelevant or base on no evidence it s decision is vitiated by error of law." The learned counsel for the opposite party has on the other hand, referred to S.S. Rai v. Deo Baran and others 1968 ALJ(R) 9 in which the learned Member of Board of Revenue, U.P. has observed as follows :- "The principle is well settled that it is not permissible for the court to travel outside the scope of the pleading on which issues have been framed. The question of amendment of the plaint has first to be considered before a plea is permitted to be raised and an issue framed." There is not doubt that the power of the court under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC to allow amendment of the pleadings is fairly wide but this is subject to certain conditions explained in many cases. The question of amendment of the plaint has first to be considered before a plea is permitted to be raised and an issue framed." There is not doubt that the power of the court under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC to allow amendment of the pleadings is fairly wide but this is subject to certain conditions explained in many cases. The most important principle for permitting amendment of the written statement is that it would not be granted if it would convert the defence into another of the different and inconsistent character. See, Shri Ram v. Gauri Shanker. No amendment can be permitted if it would involve a complete change of from in the defence. A defendant cannot be permitted to introduce a different set of facts inconsistent with those pleaded to front with Chunia Lal v. Deoram particularly when any admissions are sought to be withdrawn which would cause injury to the other side Mst. Subhashni v. Krishna Prasad ordinarily a defendants is not allowed to set up a new case by amendment at a late stage when it would mean remanding the case for taking further evidence. Vedachara v. Amina Bai and Anantha v. Bapanna. It is in the light of these principles that the present case has to be considered." 8. The learned counsel for the opposite party has also cited Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and others v. M/s. Ladha Ram and Co. AIR 1977 SC 680 . In this case the learned Bench of the Supreme Court has observed as follows :- "It is true that inconsistent pleas can be made in pleadings but the effect of substitution of paragraphs 25-26 is not making inconsistent and alternative pleadings but it is seeking to displace the plaintiff completely from the admission made by the defendants in the written statement. If such amendments are allowed the plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the opportunity of extracting the admission from the defendants. The High Court rightly rejected the application for amendment and agreed with the trial Court." 9. To my mind, in the present case the trial Court was bound to allow the prayer for amendment in as much as the proposed amendment is necessary for the determining the question in controversy between the parties. The proposed amendment does not change the nature of the case. To my mind, in the present case the trial Court was bound to allow the prayer for amendment in as much as the proposed amendment is necessary for the determining the question in controversy between the parties. The proposed amendment does not change the nature of the case. The distinction between the Sajhi cultivation and adverse possession must be clearly understood. Sajhi cultivation does not constitute adverse possession. On the other hand, it constitutes possession of the recorded tenure-holder through the Sajhidar who stands in master and servant relationship. It is admitted to both the sides that the father of the revisionists was the rightful tenure-holder of the land. Whether the tenure-holder cultivated the land himself during the period of inability due to old age or cultivated the land through a Sajhi will not affect his rights. It is only when the adverse possession comes into play that the rights are affected. The point of controversy to be determined in this case is whether or not Ram Dayal had been a continuous adverse possession of the land for more than 20 years as claimed. It is quite open to the defendant revisionist saving that Ram Dayal was not in cultivatory possession of the land or that he merely cultivated the land as Sajhi. Mere amendment of the written statement by adding a paragraph regarding Sajhi cultivation does not change the nature of the case and in fact the amendment should have been allowed under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC. 10. The result is that disagreeing with the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner, I hereby allow the revision and direct that the trial court shall proceed with the case after allowing the application of the revisionists for amendment of their written statement.