JUDGMENT : MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J. This original petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 30.01.2020 in IA No. 884 of 2019 in OS No 42 of 2013 on the files of the Sub Court, Payyannur rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint. The status of the parties in this judgment will be as referred in the suit. 2. The plaintiff is the only daughter of late C. Kallyani Amma, an Upper Primary School teacher, the original defendant in the suit, born of her wedlock with V. Bhaskara Pilla, who was a teacher at Karivellur Manyaguru U.P. School. The plaintiff was born on 09.04.1969 and her father died after one month of her birth. After the death of Bhaskara Pilla, the defendant resided with one Pariyarathu Padmanabhan, who later committed suicide. The defendant sold the property that belonged to the plaintiff’s father, which was obtained through Partition Deed No. 4532/61 of Krishnapuram SRO, as well as the property purchased by him through Sale Deed No. 199/64 of Baranikavu SRO. The defendant transferred the rights in the properties belonging to Bhaskara Pilla, also acting in her capacity as the guardian of the then minor plaintiff. Using the sale proceeds from the said properties, along with the terminal benefits, bank deposits, and insurance amounts of Bhaskara Pilla, the defendant purchased the plaint schedule properties. In the year 1979, the defendant married Kamalaksha Poduval, a tailor, and three children were born from that wedlock. The plaintiff stayed with the defendant and Kamalaksha Poduval until she attained the age of 21. Later, the relationship became strained, and the plaintiff began residing with her relatives. The plaintiff is entitled to a half share in the plaint schedule properties, which the defendant has refused to acknowledge. In the year 2013, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition of plaint schedule items 1 to 3 into two and to allot her one share. 3. The defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement, wherein it is stated that although the plaintiff is the only daughter born to the defendant in her wedlock with the deceased Bhaskara Pilla, the plaint schedule property was purchased using funds from the defendant’s own resources as well as the amounts provided by her father. 3. The defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement, wherein it is stated that although the plaintiff is the only daughter born to the defendant in her wedlock with the deceased Bhaskara Pilla, the plaint schedule property was purchased using funds from the defendant’s own resources as well as the amounts provided by her father. It is further stated that the property obtained by Bhaskara Pilla under the partition deed was in the possession and enjoyment of his brother, and the same was transferred to him and his wife without any consideration. The plaint schedule Item No. 2 property was alienated by the defendant about 20 years ago, and the remaining properties exclusively belong to her and are in her possession and enjoyment. Accordingly, she prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. During the pendency of the suit, the sole defendant died on 10.09.2018. The respondents herein, the children born to the 1 st defendant through her relationship with Kamalaksha Poduval, were impleaded as additional defendants 2 to 4 in the suit, as per the order in I.A. No. 551/2018. 5. Subsequently, when the plaintiff applied for a legal heirship certificate, she came to know that there was no legal marriage between the deceased 1 st defendant and Kamalaksha Poduval. The plaintiff also learnt that, the 1 st defendant had sold 12 cents of property from the plaint schedule properties to her brother, C. Padmanabhan, through Sale Deed Nos. 4007/1999 and 4008/1999 of Payyannur SRO. It was further revealed that the 1 st defendant had availed of a loan from the Karivellur Service Co-operative Bank by mortgaging the remaining property. In light of these developments, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 884/2019 (Ext.P3) seeking amendment of the plaint. The following amendments were sought to be incorporated: A. In the cause title after the name of the 1st defendant, her husband's name is to be shown as V.Bhasakara Pilla instead of Kamalakshan Poduval. The names of additional defendants 5, 6 and 7 Kamalaksha Poduval, C.Padmanabhan and Karivellur Service Co operative Bank respectively are to be shown in the cause title. B. In all places in the plaint prefix "deceased 1st” with the word defendant. C. The 3rd paragraph of the plaint it is written that "1st husband of the defendant". From this the word "1st" is to be removed. B. In all places in the plaint prefix "deceased 1st” with the word defendant. C. The 3rd paragraph of the plaint it is written that "1st husband of the defendant". From this the word "1st" is to be removed. Then it is to be added that "the deceased 1st defendant and late Bhaskara Pilla belong to Hindu religion and their marriage as per custom was held in the year 1966 at Karivellur Siva temple." D. In the 4th paragraph of the plaint the word 'eldest daughter' is to be replaced with 'only daughter and legal heir'. E. In the 8th paragraph of the plaint is to be added that "in the year 1980 the deceased the 1st defendant developed an affair with Kamalaksha Poduval who was having a wife living and children. They started living together additional defendants 2 to 4 are born in that relation". F. In the 9th paragraph of the plaint it is to be added that "after the death of the father of the plaintiff in the 1969 in order to purchase a property and to build a residential building for the plaintiff and the deceased 1st defendant money was accepted by the deceased 1st defendant in advance from the brother of the father of the plaintiff Parameswaran Nair and his wife Saraswathi and executed deeds No. 1843/1977, 2543/1978 of Krishnapuram S. R. O." It is also to be added that "the properties were transferred by stating that it is for the need of the minor and it was done without obtaining permission from the Court”. Then the following government was also sought to be added "plaint schedule properties belonged to the plaintiff as well as the diseased (sic.deceased)1st defendant as the legal heirs of the deceased Bhaskara Pilla but after the death of the 1st defendant the entire rights regarding the plaint schedule property belonging to the deceased 1st defendant rests with the plaintiff alone who is her legal heir". G. In the 10th paragraph of the plaint it is to be added that "after the death of the 1st defendant an application was submitted for legal heirship Certificate that the plaintiff came to know that the deceased 1st defendant is not married to Kamalaksha Poduval as he had a living wife and children. The additional defendants 2 to 4 as the children born in their living together relationship. The additional defendants 2 to 4 as the children born in their living together relationship. The plaintiff has applied for a legal heirship Certificate before the Thahsildar, Payyannur by submitting that she is the only legal heir to the deceased 1 st defendant. The above mentioned Kamalaksha Poduval and the additional defendants 2 to 4 have no manner of right in the plaint schedule properties. Hence the suit is filed for declaration that only the plaintiff has got right and possession over the plaint schedule properties and also to restrain the additional defendants from entering the property". H. In the 12th paragraph of the plaint it is to be added that " after the death of the 1st defendant, when the encumbrance Certificate of the plaint schedule property was taken on 12. 11. 2018 that it came to know that a document has been executed with regard to 12 cents of the plaint schedule property in favour of the brother of the diseased (sic.deceased) 1st defendant C. Padmanabhan. It was done without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff who is having right in the property hence it is not legal. The above mentioned C. Padmanabhan has got no right or possession of the property vide deed Nos. 4007/1999, 4008/1999 of Payyannur S. R. O. Like that it was also revealed that plaint schedule property has been pledged with Karivellur service cooperative bank. Since it was done without the consent or knowledge of the plaintiff she has got no liability at all and she is not bound by it." 6. The additional defendants filed objections to the petition for amendment contending that the original suit was filed for partition of the plaint schedule property into two shares and for allotment of one share to the plaintiff. In the plaint as well as in the application for impleading the additional defendants 2 to 4 as the legal heirs of the deceased 1 st defendant, it was averred by the plaintiff that the additional defendants 2 to 4 are the children born to the deceased 1 st defendant in her marriage with Kamalaksha Poduval. However, the contentions and reliefs initially raised have been completely abandoned in the proposed amendment. However, the contentions and reliefs initially raised have been completely abandoned in the proposed amendment. The application seeks to amend the plaint in such a manner that it effectively becomes a new suit for eviction and to substitute the original reliefs with a new claim for declaration and recovery of possession. If allowed, the amendment would fundamentally alter the nature of the suit and would adversely affect the defendants. 7. The trial court, by Ext.P5 impugned order, held that the amendment sought would alter the character of the plaint and also change the cause of action. Therefore, the amendment could not be permitted in its entirety in view of the decision reported in Kalpana and Others v . Prem Kumar and Another [ 2014 KHC 420 : 2014 (3) KLT 390 ]. However, the court observed that, for the purpose of determining the plaintiff’s liability towards the bank and the validity of the document executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of C. Padmanabhan, their names could be incorporated in the plaint by way of amendment. Accordingly, the petition for amendment was partly allowed, and the plaintiff was permitted to amend the plaint to the extent indicated as items 'A' to 'D' in the petition. Aggrieved by Ext. P5 order insofar as it rejected Ext. P3 petition for amendment as prayed for, the present original petition is filed. 8. Heard Sri. R. Gireesh Varma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Satheesan Alakkadan, the learned counsel for the respondents. 9. According to Sri. Gireesh, the plaintiff became aware of the nature of the relationship between the 1 st defendant and Kamalaksha Poduval while applying for a legal heirship certificate. Likewise, she became aware of the transactions relating to the plaint schedule properties while applying for an encumbrance certificate. There has been no laches or delay on her part in filing the petition for amendment, which was made before the commencement of the trial. The defendants will have full opportunity to meet the amended averments. Permitting the amendment would obviate the need for a separate suit. Sri. Gireesh submits that the only change is in the contention regarding the extent of the plaintiff’s entitlement; from a half share to a full share in the plaint schedule properties. The defendants will have full opportunity to meet the amended averments. Permitting the amendment would obviate the need for a separate suit. Sri. Gireesh submits that the only change is in the contention regarding the extent of the plaintiff’s entitlement; from a half share to a full share in the plaint schedule properties. The factual basis for the claim is already available in the plaint, and the basic nature of the suit is not altered by the proposed amendment. Only the contentions and the reliefs sought have been modified. It is further contended that a mere change in the reliefs sought does not amount to a change in the nature of the suit. Sri. Gireesh relied on the decision in Abdul Rehman and another v . Mohd. Ruldu and others [ (2012) 11 SCC 341 ] to contend that a change in the nature of relief claimed shall not be considered as a change in the nature of suit. He also relied on the decision of this Court in SEPC Limited v . V.S. Sunilkumar [ 2024 (2) KHC 457 ] wherein it has been held that if the amendment sought for ultimately serve the cause of justice and avoids further litigation, the same should be allowed. 10. Sri. Satheesan, on the other hand, would contend that, by the amendment proposed, there is change in contentions as well as the reliefs. It is submitted that, in the plaint, the averment was that the 1 st defendant is the legally wedded wife of Kamalaksha Poduval. However, the amendment proposed states that there was no legal marriage between the deceased 1 st defendant and Kamalaksha Poduval. Further, in the plaint, there is an admission that the additional defendants 2 to 4 are the legal heirs of the 1 st defendant. The right of the additional defendants 2 to 4 as co-owners of the plaint schedule properties also stands admitted. The admission as co-owners will be taken away if the amendment petition is allowed. This would cause injustice to the defendants. The suit was one for partition and the reliefs sought for by way of amendment are for mandatory injunction, declaration and eviction. There is substantial change in the basic nature of the suit. Sri. Satheesan relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v . This would cause injustice to the defendants. The suit was one for partition and the reliefs sought for by way of amendment are for mandatory injunction, declaration and eviction. There is substantial change in the basic nature of the suit. Sri. Satheesan relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v . Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another [2022 KHC 6882: AIR 2022 SC 4256 ] to contend that an amendment which seeks to withdraw any clear admission in the plaint whereby the other side loses a valid defence and which changes the nature of the suit cannot be allowed. 11. The question that arises for consideration in this original petition is whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the amendment in part on the ground that it would change the nature and character of the suit. 12. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits amendment of pleadings where it is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. However, it is trite that amendments should not be allowed if they introduce a wholly new and inconsistent cause of action, cause prejudice to the other side, result in withdrawal of clear admissions, or fundamentally alter the nature of the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of plaint schedule properties into two and to allot her one share. Through the amendment, the plaintiff sought to alter the relief to one of declaration, mandatory injunction, and recovery of possession, asserting full ownership over the plaint schedule properties. The proposed amendment also included a change in the factual contention, withdrawing the earlier admission regarding the legal status of the relationship between the 1 st defendant and Kamalaksha Poduval, and disputing the right of the additional defendants as co-owners. Thus, there is a substantial change in the relief and cause of action, which alters the character of the suit. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the proposed amendment is not a mere alteration of the relief sought, but amounts to a fundamental change in the nature of the suit. In Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court enumerated the cardinal principles governing the amendment of plaints and written statements and held that an amendment withdrawing clear admissions which confers a right on the other side, resulting in loss of valid defence, should not be allowed. In Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court enumerated the cardinal principles governing the amendment of plaints and written statements and held that an amendment withdrawing clear admissions which confers a right on the other side, resulting in loss of valid defence, should not be allowed. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with Ext. P5 order in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The original petition is, therefore, dismissed.