Judgment :- P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. This Revision is by defendants 16 to 26, in a suit for partition. The partition was of the estate of one Moyi Haji, the father of the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 6 and one Mammu Haji the husband of defendant No. 16 and the father of defendants 17 to 26. Various items of properties were included in the plaint schedule. Defendants 16 to 26 filed a written statement that the plaint schedule properties belonged to Moyi Haji, but that there was already an oral partition effected among lust heirs and hence the suit for partition was not maintainable. 2. Evidence was commenced in the suit. PW-1 was examined on behalf of the plaintiff. At that stage, defendants 16 to 26 sought an amendment of their written statement by filing I.A. 6764 of 1996 seeking to introduce a pleath at plaint schedule item No. 22 originally belonged to one Pocker as per a lease deed, Document No. 679 of 1943 and that the said right was purchased by Mammu Haji, their predecessor under document No. 1349 of 1948. In other words, they wanted to set up an exclusive title as lessee in their predecessor in interest against their original stand that all the suit items belonged to Moyi Haji, the father of Mammu Haji, the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6. The application was opposed by the plaintiff and defendant No. 2., They contended that an amendment which had the-effect of withdrawing an admission made in the written statement that the tide to item 22 also rested in Moyi Haji and hence part of his estate available for partition and the introduction of a totally different case that the title to that item was with Mammu Haji, their predecessor, cannot be permitted. They relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram (AIR 1977 SC 680) and Jagannadha v. ChanderBhan (AIR 1988 SC 1362) in support of their argument. Defendants 16 to 26 relied on the decision in Basavan Jaggir Bhobi v. Sukhnandan Ramdas Choudhary (1995 Supp. (3) SCC 179) in support of their plea that such an amendment of the written statement can be allowed, even if a contrary stand is attempted to be adopted. Defendants 16 to 26 relied on the decision in Basavan Jaggir Bhobi v. Sukhnandan Ramdas Choudhary (1995 Supp. (3) SCC 179) in support of their plea that such an amendment of the written statement can be allowed, even if a contrary stand is attempted to be adopted. The Court below rejected the prayer for amendment by taking the view that it was not only an incorporation of an inconsistent plea but it was a 'deprivation of an admission to the benefit of the plaintiff and 2nd defendant'. 3. The suit was for partition on the basis that plaint item No. 22 also belonged to Moyi Haji and hence was available for division among his heirs. This was not disputed by defendants 16 to 26. It can also be said that they admitted the title of Moyi Haji over that item. Now defendants 16 to 26 want to plead that the title to that item exclusively vested in their predecessor-in-title, Mammu Haji son of Moyi Haji. They are setting up two registered documents in support of their present plea. 4. It is true that the allowing of the amendment prayed for would entail a trial of an issue regarding that item. But, it is well settled that an admission by itself cannot confer title to property. An admission of a preexisting title where none in fact existed, is not sufficient to create title on Moyi Haji in this case. This position is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in Neelakantan v. Velayudhan (AIR 1958 SC 832) and the decision of this Court in Sarojini v. Sanlha Trading Co. (1969 KLT 412). It is also clear from Ambika Prasad v. Ram Ekbal Rai (AIR 1966 SC 605 at 612) that admission cannot convey title. I refer to this aspect because, the main contention of Sri. P. Sukumaran Nair, Senior counsel appearing for defendant No. 2 is that defendants 16 to 26 are not entitled to withdraw their admission that the title to property is that of the estate of Moyi Haji and is available for partition and to introduce in its place, a plea that the title is that of their predecessor Mammu Haji, the son of Moyi Haji. If the position of law is that such an admission by itself cannot confer any title on Moyi Haji, why could not defendants 16 to 26 be permitted to set up the plea that the title is really with Mammu Haji, their predecessor, by way of an amendment of the written statement, even if it be, by withdrawing the earlier admission? In my view, they can be permitted since their prior admission by itself cannot be confer any title on Moyi Haji, if in fact none existed in him. In such a situation, the contention that an admission cannot be permitted to be withdrawn and a contrary plea permitted to be introduced by way of amendment cannot have application. In such cases, an amendment of this nature can be allowed. 5. Of course, the allowing of the amendment will cast a burden on the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 to establish the title of Moyi Haji, over item No. 22. Strictly, even otherwise, they have to show that this item is available for partition as an asset left behind by Moyi Haji, when they claim a partition of it on a plea that it is an item left behind by Moyi Haji, available for partition. In such a situation it can only be taken that the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 have been inconvenienced by the delay on the part of defendants 16 to 26 in seeking the amendment. That can certainly be compensated by costs. 6. In this view, I hold that the court below has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law in refusing the amendment sought for by defendants 16 to 26. I am therefore, constrained to interfere with the order of the court below in exercise of my jurisdiction under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I therefore, allow this Civil Revision Petition, set aside the order of the Court below in I.A. 6764 of 1996 and allow that application for amendment. Considering the inconvenience caused to the plaintiff and defendant No. 2,1 direct defendants 16 to 26 to deposit unconditionally the sum of Rs. 500/- in the trial court within 2 months from this date towards the costs of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. The plaintiff and defendant No. 2 each would be entitled to withdraw Rs. 250 from that deposit. 500/- in the trial court within 2 months from this date towards the costs of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. The plaintiff and defendant No. 2 each would be entitled to withdraw Rs. 250 from that deposit. The plaintiff will be free to file a replication and defendant No. 2, an additional written statement, if they are so inclined.