ORDER 1. The defendant-appellant herein has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 17-2-1998 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in SA No. 1191 of 1984. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court and restored that of the trial court. The trial court had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs, the respondents herein, some of whom have died and are now represented by their legal representatives. 2. The dispute is in a very narrow compass: The property in dispute belonged to one Ramu Reddiar, slo Muthu Reddiar. On 1-2-1951 Ramu Reddiar executed a registered settlement deed in favour of his daughter Pachai Ammal who became the absolute owner of the entire property. On 27-6-1953, Pachai Ammal executed three settlement deeds. By the first settlement deed, she settled 1.15 cents of land in favour of her eldest daughter Govindammal (1st plaintiff in the suit); by the second settlement deed, she settled 1.16 cents of land in favour of her younger daughter Muthalammal (2nd plaintiff) and her husband Ranganathan (3rd plaintiff); and by the third settlement, she settled 0.58 cents of land in favour of her brothers son i.e. Ramu alias Jeyaraman (4th plaintiff). 3. The defendant-appellant was in possession of the suit land. The 9 respondents filed a suit being OS No. 148 of 1977, seeking declaration of their title to the suit land as well as its possession. The defence put up by the appellant was that Pachai Ammal after cancelling the first two settlement deeds in favour of her (i) eldest daughter, and (ii) younger daughter and her husband, executed registered sale deed in favour of Vallaisami Gounder for a sum of Rs 600 in respect of two acres of land. It was also claimed that Aiyasami Gounder son of Vallaisami Gounder was in possession of the land in pursuance to the usufructuary mortgage executed by Ramu Reddiar under two "mortgage" documents dated 2-6-1949 and 5-6-1950 in respect of the two acres of land. 4. The trial court found that Pachai Ammal had duly executed the three settlement deeds and the same were valid. It was held that neither the settlement deeds had been revoked nor the property was sold by Pachai Ammal in favour of the appellant. 4. The trial court found that Pachai Ammal had duly executed the three settlement deeds and the same were valid. It was held that neither the settlement deeds had been revoked nor the property was sold by Pachai Ammal in favour of the appellant. The plea taken by the appellant that the property had been mortgaged to him by Ramu Reddiar was also not accepted and the suit was ordered to be dismissed (sic decreed). Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the appellant filed appeal being AS No. 110 of 1982 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Vridhachalam, which was allowed. The first appellate court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit filed by the respondents. 5. Being aggrieved against the order of the first appellate court, the respondents filed second appeal in the High Court which has been accepted by the impugned order. Govindammal and Ramu @ Jeyaraman who got the property under the 1st and the 3rd settlement deeds, respectively have entered into a settlement with the appellant. They have filed an affidavit in this Court to the effect that they have settled the dispute with the appellant and the suit filed by them against the appellant to the extent of their share be dismissed. 6. So far as the second settlement deed, by which 1.16 cents of land was settled by Pachai Ammal in favour of her younger daughter Muthalammal and her husband Ranganathan is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant contends that he cannot challenge the judgment of the High Court as it stands. That the same is in accordance with law and the evidence on record. He urged that he be permitted to take additional grounds which had not been taken by him in the suit. He has filed IA No.1 of 1998 seeking permission to take the additional grounds, which was allowed and taken on record. 7. In our considered opinion, the appellant cannot be permitted to take the additional grounds at this stage of the proceedings, as it would necessitate the amendment of the pleadings as well as taking of additional evidence. He has filed IA No.1 of 1998 seeking permission to take the additional grounds, which was allowed and taken on record. 7. In our considered opinion, the appellant cannot be permitted to take the additional grounds at this stage of the proceedings, as it would necessitate the amendment of the pleadings as well as taking of additional evidence. The case shall have to be remitted back to the trial court for amendment of the pleadings, framing of fresh issues in the light of the amendment of the pleadings and the taking of the additional evidence. The dispute relates to a very small piece of land and the parties cannot be relegated to undergo a fresh trial for such a small piece of land. 8. The appeal insofar as it relates to the second settlement deed is dismissed. Judgments of the High Court and the courts below are set aside so far as they relate to the 1st and the 4th plaintiff, namely, Govindammal and Ramu @ Jeyaraman and the suit filed by them against the appellant is dismissed. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.