Judgment : This revision is against the order of the learned District Munesif, Panruti, allowing the amendment petition filed by the plaintiffs in I.A. No. 890 of 1993 in O.S. No. 591 of 1987 for the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the property shown as B schedule in the amendment petition. The plaintiffs/respondents herein filed the suit for mandatory injunction for the removal of the fence shown as “X” “Y” in the plan. Subsequently this petition was filed alleging that the defendants/petitione rs herein have encroached upon 915 sq. ft. of the property east of the fence and they must be permitted to amend the plaint for the relief of declaration and also for recovery of possession. This was resisted by the defendants but the lower court has ordered for the amendment of the plaint. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners Mr. Ragahavachari would contend that the relief sought for in the plaint is only mandatory injunction in respect of a fence shown along “X” “Y” whereas the amendment sought for is for declaration and recovery of possession of “B” schedule property comprising 915 sq. ft. and the relief completely alters the nature of the suit and therefore the amendment ought not to have been allowed by the lower court. He also would contend that the B schedule property sh own in the petition for amendment is not the subject matter in the main suit and therefore when the relief cannot be granted in respect of the property not subject matter of the suit, the amendment cannot be allowed to include that property. 3. On the other hand it is contended for the respondents that the description about the property east of the fence is given in the plaint itself though the relief is not in respect of the portion east of the fence. It is argued that the plaintiffs filed the suit on the assumption that the defendants are not disputing their title in respect of this portion east of “X” “Y” line but as they have filed written statement challenging their title to the portion on the east of the “X” “Y” line they were compelled to ask for the relief or declaration and possession. 4. 4. On a perusal of the plan, I find that the description of the property on the eastern side of “X” “Y” line is given only for the proper understanding of the disputed property. The relief sought for in the plaint is only in respect of the “X” “Y” fence for mandatory injunction. But now the relief is sought for is in respect of the property namely 915 sq. ft. lying east of the “X” “Y” line and it cannot be stated by any stretch of imagination that this 915 sq. ft. is the subjectmatter of the suit for which the relief is sought for in the original plaint. Therefore, I hold that now the relief of declaration and possession is sought for in respect of a property which is not the subject matter of the suit. When this 915 sq. ft. shown as B schedule in the amendment petition, is not the subjectmatter and it is also alleged in the description that the defendants have now trespassed into the property, I feel that the amendment cannot be permitted in respect of this property for the relief of declaration and possession when especially it is not the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, the court below erred in allowing this amendment and the order of the court below has to be set aside. No doubt, the plaintiffs are at liberty to file a separate suit in respect of the 3 schedule property shown in the amendment petition. 5. In the result, the order of the court below is set aside. The revision is allowed subject to the right of the plaintiffs to file a separate suit in respect of the B schedule property shown in the amendment petition. No costs.