JUDGMENT This revision is filed by the plaintiff Smt. Ganga Bai against the non-applicant-defendant. The case of the appellant was that she was the widow of Madan Lal Sahu and defendant Nos. 1 to 6 are the successors-in-title of Hari Sahu. Hari Sahu and Madan Lal Sahu were real brothers. Madal Lal Sahu permitted Hari Sahu as a licensee in two rooms of the house because he was his brother. During his life-time, Hari Sahu remained in the house in the two rooms which were given by his brother Madan Lal Sahu. The house was not being vacated by his legal representatives despite several repeated requests. It was further alleged that instead of vacating the house, the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 6 broke open the lock of the house, in occupation of the applicant. It was claimed that the licensee automatically expired after the death of Hari Sahu. On that basis a suit for declaration of title and possession of the portion, show in red colour in the map, was filed. The stand of the non-applicant, Nos. 1 to 6 in the written statement was that Madan Lal Sahu was not the owner of the suit house and the sale deed dated 28.8.1962 in his favour was obtained by practising fraud upon Hari Sahu. It was further claimed that in fact the suit house belonged to Hari Sahu, who had purchased the suit house in the name of his younger brother Madan Lal Sahu. Hari Sahu was the real owner and he was the person who was acting as owner through-out his life time. Madan Lal Sahu never claimed his right and title to the suit property during his life time. It was further claimed that in view of the aforesaid, the applicant could not be said to be the owner of the suit property. After the evidence was recorded, an amendment was sought to be made to state the fact that at the time the suit property was purchased, on 28.8.1962, Madan Lal Sahu was minor and he was studying in the Hitkarini I.B.M. School Govindganj, Jabalpur. This amendment was allowed by the trial Court. From the narration of the fact, stated above, it is clear that dispute between the parties is regarding the title of the suit house. This amendment was allowed by the trial Court. From the narration of the fact, stated above, it is clear that dispute between the parties is regarding the title of the suit house. The applicant claimed that she is the owner of the suit house being the widow of Madan Lal Sahu who had purchased the suit house by registered sale-deed dated 28.8.1962. On the other hand, the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 6 claimed that the suit house was purchased in the name of Madan Lal Sahu by Hari Sahu. The grievance of the applicant against the amendment is that after she had closed the evidence, the amendment has been allowed by the trial Court. There is considerable delay in allowing the amendment. In the opinion of this Court. the amendment. sought to be made by the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 6 in the written statement, was not at all required for proving their case. It is well established that this is a matter of evidence whether a person was major or minor at the time when a particular sale-deed was executed. It does not relate to the real controversy in the suit. The non-applicant Nos. 1 to 6 could have proved their case by leading evidence on this point. Consequently, this revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.2.1998 is hereby set aside on the ground that the amendment, sought to be made in the written statement, is unnecessary.