Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 25.3.2000, by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ``the Code) to permit him to amend the written statement, has been rejected on the ground that by amendment, he was withdrawing the admission and it would displace non-petitioner/plaintiffs case. (2). The facts and circumstances rise to this case are that the plaintiff/non-petitioner filed a suit for partition and other reliefs on 5.10.99 and petitioner-defendant filed written statement on 12.11.99. Rejoinder affidavit was filed on 13.2.99 and on the basis of said pleadings, issues were framed on 15.12.99. The case was fixed on 15.3.2000 for recording evidence of the plaintiff/non-petitioner; however, on that date, petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code for amending the contents of paragraph No. 2 in the written statement denying the right of share of plaintiff/non- petitioner in the suit property, which has been rejected vide impugned order. Hence this revision. (3). It is settled proposition of law that admission is the best evidence unless the party who has admitted it proves it to have been admitted under a wrong presumption or it could not have been otherwise factually correct. In Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale vs. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi & Ors. (1), the Honble Apex Court observed as under:- ``An admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. (4). The same view had been reiterated in K.S. Srinivasan vs. Union of India and Others (2); Basant Singh vs. Janki Singh (3); Prem Ex-Serviceman Co-operative Tenant Farming Society Ltd. vs. State of Haryana (4); and Avadh Kishore Dass vs. Ram Gopal and Others (5). (5). In Nagubai Ammal & Ors. vs. B. Shama Rao & Ors. (6), the Apex Court had taken the view that statements admitting the factual position must be given full effect and while deciding the same, the Honble Supreme Court placed reliance on the decision in Slatterie vs. Pooley (7), wherein the Court had observed that ``what a party must admit to be true, may reasonably presumed to be so. (6). In Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Ladha Ram & Co. (6). In Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Ladha Ram & Co. (8), the Honble Supreme Court held that amendment in the written statement cannot be permitted taking an inconsistent plea as compared to the earlier plea which contained an admission in favour of the plaintiff for the reason that such inconsistent plea would displace the plaintiff completely from the admission made by the defendant in the written statement. (7). In Basavan Jagga Dhobi vs. Sukhnandan Ramdas Chaudhary (9), the Honble Supreme Court held that in certain circumstances, inconsistent stand can be permitted to be taken by the defendant provided the stand itself does not seek to displace any admission on the part of defendant in favour of plaintiff. Similar view has been reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in Akshaya Restaurant vs. P. Anjanappa (10). (8). In Heeralal vs. Kalyan Mal & Ors. (11), the Honble Supreme Court, placing reliance upon large number of its earlier judgments, including Panchdeo Narain Srivastava vs. Km. Jyoti Sahay (12), reiterated that inconsistent plea cannot be permitted to be taken in the written statement by amendment if it seeks displacing plaintiffs case and withdrawal of the earlier admission made by the defendant. In Panchdeo Narain Srivastava (supra), the issue was: whether the defendant was uterine or real brother and by amendment, withdrawal of the word ``uterine was sought. The Honble Supreme Court held that on the facts and circumstances of that case, it would no change the nature of the pleadings or admission, for the reason that still the matter remains that they were the brothers. (9). The instant case requires to be considered in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances. (10). In Para 2 of the written statement, petitioner-defendant has clearly stated that in respect of the property in dispute, Champa Lal father of the parties, had executed a Will during his life-time in 1981 dividing the movable and immovable properties, according to which petitioner-defendant is the sole owner of the suit property and on the basis of the same, his name has been entered in the record of the Municipal Board and he has been paying the house tax etc. as the owner of that property. as the owner of that property. In para 3, he further stated that after the death of Champa Lal on 13.12.95, he became the sole owner of the property in dispute and, therefore, the averments made by plaintiff/non-petitioner that he was also a co-sharer in the property in dispute, is not correct and, thus, not admitted. he further stated that in 1977, there had been a complete partition between the parties and after the death of their mother, petitioner-defendant was living alongwith his family in the suit property and plaintiff/non- petitioner had no concern with the property in dispute. Similarly, in para 5, it has been submitted that petitioner- defendant was the exclusive owner of the property in dispute and has a right to alienate the same further and plaintiff/non- petitioner was not entitled for any relief. Similar averments have been made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the written statement. (11). The application was filed that in para 2 of the written statement, there has been a typographical error and instead of saying that it was ``not admitted that after the death of Champa Lal the petitioner-defendant and other plaintiff/non- petitioners held that property in dispute as a joint family property has been typed as ``admitted, Thus, amendment to the effect that the word ``not before the word ``admitted be permitted to be added. In the application, it was submitted that typographical error had occurred inadvertantly. In support of this, a Draft Written Statement was also filed alongwith the affidavits of the petitioner-defendant and his counsel Mr. Madan Lal Kochar. (12). If the written statement is read as a whole, it is clear that petitioner-defendant had no-where admitted the claim of plaintiff/non-petitioner that after the death of their father Champa Lal, they became the joint owners of the suit property. Thus, apparently it seems to be a case of typographical error. Reading all the paragraphs of the written statement together, no other inference is possible. Therefore, it is a fit case where the revision deserves to be allowed and it is certainly not a case wherein the petitioner-defendant wanted to withdraw the admission as it was clearly a mistake which he should be permitted to rectify. (13). Thus, in view of the above, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.3.2000 is hereby quashed. The amendment application is allowed. (13). Thus, in view of the above, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.3.2000 is hereby quashed. The amendment application is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. The learned trial Court is requested to expedite the hearing.