defendant no. 1/younger daughter, which deed plaintiff has challenged in his suit. It is not the case of defendant that original owner Tinkari died before introduction of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or Indubala, plaintiff and defendant no. 1 are not his legal heirs. On perusal of written statement it appears that real dispute in the suit is according to defendants aforesaid deed of settlement executed by Indubala in favour of defendant no. 1 is legal valid, which the plaintiff has challenged and prayed as void. In the written objection against amendment petition defendants have made only evasive denial and has not stated how they are going to be prejudiced, if the proposed amendment is allowed. Accordingly the subject matter of proposed amendment is already in the pleading and the question of changing nature and character of the suit after proposed amendment does not arise because even if proposed amendment is allowed, suit will remain a suit as to whether aforesaid deed of settlement executed by Indubala is liable to be declared as void deed or not and I find nothing wrong in the observation of trial court that the proposed amendment is formal in nature and such observation, in view of the above does not call for any interference by this court. Court below has already given liberty to the defendants to file additional written statement and in addition to that since the amendment has been filed at a belated stage after closing of evidence, if opportunity to examine, cross-
