26. There is merit in the submission made by the counsel for the plaintiff that if permission is granted to the defendant to amend the written statement, as prayed for, then it shall cause serious injustice to the plaintiff inasmuch as it will result in permitting the defendant to take contradictory and inconsistent pleas in negation of the position taken in his original written statement, wherein he had averred that Mr. R.G. Nayar had left a will, whereunder, his son, Shri Raghav Nayar, was bequeathed one half undivided share in the suit property. Such a bequest could have taken place only on the premise that the suit property was a self-acquired property of late Shri R.G. Nayar and not if it was a HUF property as now sought to be claimed by the defendant. Similarly, the validation of the claim of the defendant to half undivided share of his mother, Smt. Sharda Nayar in the suit premises on the basis of devolution made by a will executed by her in his favour would be sustainable only if the suit property was an absolute property of the parents of the parties and not if it was purchased by Shri R.G. Nayar as a karta of a hindu undivided family, as claimed in the proposed amendments.
