JUDGMENT B.K. Misra, Member - This is a revision arising out of the order of the Collector, Etawah, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner Shyam Lal against the order of the Naib Tahsildar allowing the amendment in the application filed by Smt. Mangoo and Smt. Ram Sri for mutation in respect of the property of Smt. Sarwati, deceased. 2. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the original application for mutation contains the statement of Smt. Sarwati that she inherited the property from her husband. In the application for amendment dated March 25, 1972 Smt. Mangoo and Smt. Ram Sri had stated that the land over which the mutation was sought was self-acquired property of Smt. Sarwati and that due to some error in the record, and the petitioner being illiterate, this fact was not brought into the original application. The learned Naib Tahsildar allowed the amendment and the learned Collector upheld that order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner said that this changes the nature of the case. He mentioned that as the brother of Smt. Sarwati's husband, Shyam Lal had a preferential, claim hence Devi Din had a preferential claim. It may be mentioned here that Devi Din is the son of Shyam Lal, who died. The learned counsel for the opposite party stated that this does not change the material nature of the case and that the onus of proving that the property was self-acquired by Smt. Sarwati rested on the applicant and on no body else. There can be no doubt on this score that the responsibility of proving the claim of mutation rests only on them. The learned counsel for the revisionist, however, relied on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. and another v. M/s. Ladha Ram and Co., A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 680. Their Lordship held that while inconsistent pleas can be made in pleadings, the effect of substitution in that case was not to make it inconsistent and alternative pleadings, but to displace the plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement. On the same analogy, the learned counsel for the revisionist said that it is admitted in the original mutation application that the property came to Smt. Sarwati from her husband. On the same analogy, the learned counsel for the revisionist said that it is admitted in the original mutation application that the property came to Smt. Sarwati from her husband. It is, however distinguished at this stage that proceedings under Section 34 of the L.R. Act do not cite any opposite party but depend upon objection through proclamation in rem. As such, each party has to stand on its own ground to prove his claim and the statement of any objector would not have a binding effect. As such, the application for mutation of Smt. Ram Sri and Smt. Mangoo only would lie though the onus rests upon them to prove their claim of succession or mutation, and the nature of the case does not change materially. 4. The revision is dismissed accordingly.