ORDER 1. Plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for partition and perpetual injunction with allegations that the plaintiff and defendants are children of a common father who owned a property situated at Naka Chandrabadni, Naharwali Mata Road, Lashkar, Gwalior. Their father died on 11.3.1977 in intestate condition. An oral family settlement was effected which was not in accordance with law. Plaintiff being owner to the extent of 1/4th share is entitled to his 1/4th share after effecting partition by metes and bounds. Decree for perpetual injunction has also been sought for restraining the defendants from alienating the disputed property with cut first effecting the partition and consequent allotment of 1/4th share to the plaintiff. 2. Defendants-petitioners submitted their joint written statement. They acknowledged their relationship as well as source of title. According to them, the family settlement was effected in due manner and the same was acted upon. Plaintiff is debarred from claiming any share contrary to the family settlement. 3. An application for temporary injunction was submitted by the plaintiff which was dismissed by the learned trial Judge as well as by the learned lower appellate Court in the light of family settlement. Thereafter, the plaintiff-respondent submitted an application under Order 6 rule 17 CPC for amendment at primary stage of the suit. By way of proposed amendment, plaintiff sought leave to delete the averments regarding oral family settlement. Instead, he sought leave to substitute averments to the effect that it was decided between the plaintiff and defendants that the parties would enjoy their respective portions which were possessed by them until a valid partition takes place. This application was opposed by the defendants-petitioners mainly on the ground that it amounts to withdrawal of admission. 4. Learned trial Judge by the impugned order 8.9.2005 marked as Annexure P-1 allowed the application on a cost of Rs.350/- on the ground that the proposed amendment is necessary for deciding the real controversy involved between the parties and the amendment may be permitted since the evidence of the parties had not commenced. 5. Shri Bharadwaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the plaint as well as the application for temporary injunction contained admission about the oral family settlement having taken place between the parties. 5. Shri Bharadwaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the plaint as well as the application for temporary injunction contained admission about the oral family settlement having taken place between the parties. This admission cannot be permitted to be withdrawn in the light of the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another v. M/s. Ladha Ram and Co. [ AIR 1977 SC 680 ], and Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal and others [ AIR 1998 SC 618 ]. 6. Before adverting to the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I would like to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and others [ AIR 1960 SC 100 ], wherein it has been held : "An admission is the best evidence that an opposing party C4 rely upon, and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous." 7. Aforesaid observation of the apex Court clearly goes to show that it is not an abstract law that an admission cannot be withdrawn at all in any case. On the contrary, it may successfully be withdrawn or even without such withdrawal may be proved to be erroneous. Similarly, the apex Court in the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [ (2001)8 SCC 97 ], has held that even if there were some admissions in the plaint as well as in the written statement it was still open to the parties to explain the same by way of filing an application for amendment of pleadings. Lastly, in the case of Baldev Singh and others v. Manohar Singh and another [2006(111) MPWN 97= (2006)6 SCC 498 ], Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held to the effect that the withdrawal of admission from pleadings is not impermissible. 8. Now, it is to be examined that did the plaint contain an admission of the kind which could not be withdrawn at all. Earlier averments of the plaint were to the effect that an oral family partition took place between the plaintiff and defendants which was not in accordance with law. It was rather contrary to the law and is not acceptable to the plaintiff-respondent. Earlier averments of the plaint were to the effect that an oral family partition took place between the plaintiff and defendants which was not in accordance with law. It was rather contrary to the law and is not acceptable to the plaintiff-respondent. These averments were permitted to be substituted by way of amendment by the averments that it was decided between the plaintiff and defendants that the portions occupied by respective parties would remain in the user and enjoyment of the particular occupant until a partition amongst them takes place. 9. "Family settlement" is not synonymous to partition. A partition causes severance of status of the family as well the joint family property whereas a family settlement is effected for better and convenient user of joint family property. A family settlement, in strict sense, does not cause severance of status whereas a family partition does result into severance of status. A member of HUF in occupation of a particular portion of HUF property under a family settlement may compel another member to approach a Court of law for seeking partition. To this extent, Courts often recognise family settlement which is obviously to allow joint family to maintain the balance amongst its members. By virtue of a valid partition, title of other sharers would come to an end with respect to a specific portion allotted to a particular member. A family settlement is normally effected for peaceful, better and convenient user and enjoyment of the family property. Rights of other members are not extinguished in a specific portion allotted to a particular member in family settlement. Thus, unless a family settlement is effected with an intention of bringing an end to the joint status of the family, it cannot be equated to a family partition. 10. Examining the averments on the above said parameters, it may be seen that the plaintiff has nowhere accepted the alleged oral family settlement as a partition. On the contrary, he has expressly and specifically averred that the alleged family settlement was in violation of legal principles and the plaintiff is entitled to seek a decree for partition with respect to his 1/4th share in the suit property. There was no admission in absolute sense that an oral family settlement cum partition was effected. This being so, it cannot be said that the averments contained an admission of the nature which could not have been withdrawn. There was no admission in absolute sense that an oral family settlement cum partition was effected. This being so, it cannot be said that the averments contained an admission of the nature which could not have been withdrawn. 11. Now I may deal with the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the case of M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills (supra), the proposed amendment was disallowed on the ground that the defendants wanted to introduce entirely different case and if such amendments were permitted it would prejudice the other side. 12. In the present case, firstly, as stated hereinabove there was no admission in an unequivocal language that the alleged family settlement amounted to partition. Secondly, the plaintiff himself has averred that the alleged oral family settlement was contrary to law. Thirdly, the plaintiff, even according to the earlier pleadings did not accept the family settlement and had claimed 1/4th share in partition by metes and bounds. Thus, I do not find an absolute admission in the plaint which may be stated to have been withdrawn beyond the permissible limits. It may further be seen that the defendants-petitioners shall have an opportunity to prove their defence. Earlier also, the defendants-petitioners were required to establish that the alleged family settlement amounted to partition and has precluded the plaintiff from seeking a partition afresh. Even after deletion of the averments of the plaint pertaining to oral family settlement, the defendants-petitioners would be well within their rights to use the earlier pleadings for the purpose of contradicting the plaintiff during the evidence. They may also by independent evidence establish that the alleged family settlement was in fact in the nature of family partition. Accordingly, it is found that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants-petitioners on account of withdrawal of certain averments permitted by the learned trial Judge by the impugned order. 13. Shri Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Sushilabai v. Girijabai and another [1975 JLJ SN 94]. It was held in Sushilabai's case (supra), that it is not open to a Court under Order 6 rule 17 CPC to allow an amendment which involves the setting up of a new case or alters the real matter in controversy between the parties. It was held in Sushilabai's case (supra), that it is not open to a Court under Order 6 rule 17 CPC to allow an amendment which involves the setting up of a new case or alters the real matter in controversy between the parties. This preposition is of no assistance to the petitioners because firstly the plaintiff by way of impugned amendment is not trying to set up any new case. Plaintiff-respondent did not accept the alleged family settlement as binding on him even in the earlier pleadings. Secondly, the learned trial Judge while allowing the application for amendment has clearly observed that the proposed amendment is necessary for deciding the real controversy involved between the parties. In the case of Heeralal (supra), the apex Court has disallowed an application for amendment for withdrawal of admission on the ground that it would displace the plaintiff from his case. In the present case, it has already been found that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants who shall have a full right to prove their defence. Moreover, there was no admission in unambiguous and unequivocal language which may be stated to have been withdrawn by the proposed amendment. 14. Apart from the aforesaid, I may profitably refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of Prem Bakshi and others v. Dharam Dev and others [ 2002(1) Supreme 40 ], wherein it has been observed : "Now the question is whether the order in question has caused failure of justice or irreparable injury to respondent No.1. It is almost inconceivable how mere amendments of pleadings could possibly cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party. Perhaps the converse is possible, i.e., refusal to permit the amendment sought for could in certain situations result in miscarriage of justice. After all amendments of the pleadings would not amount to decisions on the issue involved. They only would serve advance notice to the other side as to the plea, which a party might take up. Hence, we cannot envisage a situation where amendment of pleadings, whatever be the nature of such amendment, would even remotely cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party. They only would serve advance notice to the other side as to the plea, which a party might take up. Hence, we cannot envisage a situation where amendment of pleadings, whatever be the nature of such amendment, would even remotely cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party. From the facts extracted above it would show that appellants only wanted to bring to the notice of the Court the subsequent facts and after amendment of the plaint, respondent No.1 would get opportunity to file written statement and he would be able to raise all his defence. Ultimately if the suit is decided against the respondent No.1, he would have a chance to take up these points before the appellate Court. It cannot be conceived of a situation that the proposed amendment if allowed would cause irreparable injury or failure of justice as the remedy of the respondent No.1, as stated above, is by way of an appeal." 15. Morever, learned trial Judge has already found that the proposed amendment is necessary for deciding the controversy between the parties. In the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others v. K.K. Modi and others [ AIR 2006 SC 1647 ], Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the object of Order 6 rule 17 CPC is that Courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. It has already been found that no prejudice has been caused to the defendants-petitioners on account of allowing the amendment by the learned trial Judge. Thus, no interference is warranted in the facts circumstances of the case and I decline to interfere accordingly. Consequently, I do not find any substance in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, without order as to costs.