JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - Plaintiff is the petitioner against refusal of amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff brought the suit for partition claiming 1/4th share in the suit properties with the pleading that opposite parties 4 and 5 were also entitled to l/4th share and opposite parties 1 to 3 were entitled to 1/2 share. Subsequent to filing of the written statement, a petition for amendment was filed to the effect that defendant No.4(op-posite party No.4) and the mother guardian of defendant No.5(opposite party No.5) had by registered sale deed of 1930 transferred their 1/4th interest in the property in favour of the plaintiff and as such he was the owner in possession of the said property. The effect of the amendment sought for was thus to claim half share in the suit property. The learned Subordinate Judge disallowed the amendment holding that he effect of the same would be to negate the admission of the plaintiff regarding 1/4th share of opposite parties 4 and 5 in the suit property and for the purpose relied upon the decision of this Court in Fakir Majhi and another v. Bhagirathi Majhi and another, 47 (1979) CUT 94. The decision referred to was a case where the plaintiff has filed the suit for a declaration that the alienations made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 were void and or permanent injunction restraining the said defendant No.1 from alienating the 4' schedule lands therein. The case of the plaintiff was that he was the adopted son of defendant No.1 who had been to Burma where he had acquired considerable wealth and with the help of that had purchased the disputed land. Defendant No. 1 had married for the second time in 1975 and under the influence of the second wife had alienated the 'B' and 'C schedule lands without legal necessity. Thus the plaintiff claimed the disputed lands to be the self-acquired lands of defendant No.1 to which he was entitled being his adopted son. In the amendment sought for, the plaintiff had sought to plead that defendant No.1, instead of purchasing the disputed property with the wealth acquired by going to Burma, had purchased the disputed property out of the money acquired from the ancestral property. In the amendment sought for, the plaintiff had sought to plead that defendant No.1, instead of purchasing the disputed property with the wealth acquired by going to Burma, had purchased the disputed property out of the money acquired from the ancestral property. Thus, while originally the property was described as the self-acquired property of defendant No.1, by way of amendment the same was sought to be described as having been obtained with the aid of ancestral properties. From the very nature of the case, it was apparent that the amendment sought for was to completely change the nature of the right claimed by the plaintiff therein by charging substantially the factual details. 2. The facts so far as the present case is concerned are however different. The plaintiff has claimed for partition of the joint family property and by the amendment has only sought to enlarge his share in view of a sale deed executed by the opposite parties 4 and guardian of opposite party No.5. The nature of the suit is not changed, but what is sought to be done through amendment is only enlargement of the share so far as the plaintiff concerned. Any admission of the plaintiff regarding the share of opposite parties 4 and 5 is also available to be varied by presentation of proper facts rebutting the admission. It is well known that an admission is otherwise binding on the person making it until rebuttal thereof is made by leading evidence otherwise. I would thus hold that the amendment in no way charges the nature of the suit. It was held in Sanatan Mohapatra and others v. Hakim Mohammad Kazim Mohammad and others, 1977(1) CWR 474, dealing with the scope of Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. as follows: "Power to grant amendment of the pleadings is not to be narrowly construed and should be liberally exercised. As regards the power of amendment the general principle is that the power to grant amendment of the pleadings being intended to serve the ends of justice, is not to be narrowly construed and should be liberally exercised, unless the amendment sought for would change the nature of the suit. Rules of procedure are intended to be handmaid to the administration of justice, and a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. Rules of procedure are intended to be handmaid to the administration of justice, and a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always given leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs." On the aforesaid analysis, the amendment sought for must be allowed. 3. However, so far as the amendment to the effect that the petitioner, since the date of purchase, is the owner in possession of the land is concerned, obviously such amendment cannot be allowed. Since it is a suit for partition of the joint family properties, it is obvious that the case of the plaintiff was that each cosharer is in possession of each parcel of land without any separate possession thereof by any one and it being originally the case of the plaintiff that opposite parties 4 and 5 were untitled to 1/4th share, the plaintiff could not claim to have any continuing separate possession of the same. What was purchased was only 1/4th share, the plaintiff could not claim to have any continuing separate possession of the same. What was purchased was only 1/4th share and not any specific part of the property. Thus, that part of the amendment in which possession by him is claimed cannot be allowed and for the purpose the petitioner may be permitted to recast the proposed amendment. 4. In the result, the revision is allowed with costs to the extent as aforesaid. Final Result : Dismissed