The main legal point established in the judgment is that an amendment seeking to withdraw clear and categorical admissions made in the original written statement, and setting up an altogether new case, is not permissible under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.

JUDGMENT

N.S.Sanjay Gowda, J. - The plaintiff is the writ petitioner. The plaintiff had filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share (out of first defendant's 1/3rd share) in all the suit schedule properties.

2. The said suit was filed against his father Sri K.Shivaramaiah Setty-Defendant No 1 and his father's brothers Sri Venkatachalapathy-Defendant No.2 and Sri K. Ashwathanarayana Setty-Defendant No.3.

3. In the said suit the plaintiff's father's brother Sri K. Sathyanarayana Setty was arrayed as defendant No.4 and his children were arrayed as defendant Nos.5 to 7.

4. The said fourth defendant i.e., Sri K.Sathyanarayana Setty filed a written statement in which he admitted that Sri Shivaramaiah Setty, Sri K. Sathyanarayana Setty and Late M.K. Narayana Setty continuously and jointly enjoying the joint family properties and he had become the Karta of the joint family in his plea at paragraph 2 of his written statement. This plea was in response to paragraph 5 of the plaint.

5. He also admitted in his written statement that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 together were entitled to 1/3rd share, defendant Nos.4 to 7 were together having 1/3rd share, defendant Nos.8 to 11 were together entitled to 1/3rd share except a properties belong to defendant Nos.12 & 13.

6. However, after the trial was over, the fourth defendant made an application seeking to amend his written statement. Under the said application he sought to introduce 2 paragraphs i.e. paragraphs 13 & 14. In the said paragraphs, the fourth defendant however sought to resile from his admission made earlier by stating that there was no joint venture or joint family and by also stating that because he was the elderly person in the family he was called a Yajaman of the family but he was not a Kartha of the joint family.

7. In other words, by the averments made in these two paragraphs, he basically sought to withdraw the admission made by him in his original written statement.

8. The Trial Court, however came to the conclusion, that the granting of the amendment would not in any way change the nature of the contentions taken up in respect of the properties and therefore, no prejudice would be caused by allowing the amendment. The writ petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by this grant of amendment is before this Court challenging the granting of amendment.

9. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proposed amendment essentially amounted to withdrawal of the clear and categorical admission made by the 4th defendant regarding the nature of the joint family and his status in the family and such a withdrawal of an admission was impermissible by way of an amendment application.

10. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 i.e. son of the deceased fourth respondent contended that by virtue of the amendment his father was only seeking to amplify and elaborate the defence taken up by him and the proposed amendment was essentially an explanation to the admission and therefore, the Trial Court was justified in granting the amendment. He submitted that it was permissible under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to raise a new plea by way of amendment and legally also there was no bar for making such an amendment. He relied upon the following judgments:

1. RAJ KUMAR BHATIA V. SUBHASH CHANDER BHATIA, (2018) AIR SC 100

2. RAM NIRANJAN KAJARIA V. SHEO PRAKASH KAJARIA AND ORS. JUGAL KISHORE KAJARIA V. SHEO PRAKASH KAJARIA AND ORS, (2016) Supp AIR SC 1018

3. MOHAMMED ALI AND ANOTHER V. SMT. KHATEJATAL KUBRA AND OTHERS, (2002) 1 KarLJ 596 .

4. SRI SHAMBANNA V. THE KARNATAKA POLICE EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY(R), MYSORE AND OTHERS, (2010) 2 KCCR 846 .

11. The fourth defendant in his original written statement categorically stated as follows in respect of paragraph 5 of the plaint:

"2. Allegations in para.5 of the plaint that other brothers namely Shivaramaiah Setty, K.S.Sathyanarayana Setty and Late M.K.Narayanasetty continued to