Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC allow for alternate defenses like adverse possession, provided they are substantiated in pleadings; courts should be liberal in permitting such amendments.

ORDER :

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.

Heard Sri H.R.Ananthakrishnamurthy, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri P.N.Hegde, learned counsel for caveator/respondent.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2025 passed on I.A.No.VII in O.S.No.5226/2011 by X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

3. Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant to declare that the sale deed dated 31.03.2011 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. During the course of the trial, the defendant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the written statement. The said application came to be objected to by the plaintiff. Upon consideration of the said application, the trial Court had rejected the same, which is the subject matter of this petition.

5. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the defendant that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is illegal, perverse and arbitrary and the same is liable to be set-aside. It is further contended by the learned counsel for defendant that the defendant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property from 05.12.1998 and suit was filed by the plaintiff on 21.07.2011, which is more than 12 years from the date of actual possession of the defendant. When the matter was set down for arguments, the application came to be filed seeking amendment of the written statement by incorporating one paragraph seeking relief of adverse possession, which ought to have been allowed by the trial Court.

5.1 Learned counsel for defendant further contended that the trial Court has come to the conclusion that while pleading relief of adverse possession, the defendant must admit the title of the plaintiff, which is per se illegal and contrary to the well-established principle of adverse possession.

5.2. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the defendant has made an alternative defence by contending that in the event the defendant is unable to establish his title, he has perfected his title by adverse possession, which cannot be denied. The defendant is entitled to take divergent pleas, it is for the Court to decide as to whether he succeeds or not, but cannot curtail the rights of the defendant to take such pleas in a written statement at any stage, if so permissible. It is further contented by learned counsel that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is opposed to law and facts.

5.3 Learned counsel relied upon the following judgments in support of his case:

1. Kishundeo Rout & Ors. v/s Govind Rao & Ors. reported in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.22070/2025.

2. Baldev Singh and Ors. v/s Manohar Singh and Ors. reported in Civil Appeal No.3362/2006.

3. Mahadevappa v/s shankareppa and Ors. reported in reported in W.P.No.113500/2015.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for plaintiff sustains the impugned order by contending that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. If the defendant claims the relief of adverse possession by way of an amendment, firstly, he has to admit the ownership of the plaintiff. In the absence of such statement in the written statement or in the amendment of the written statement, there cannot be an issue of adverse possession, which is the primary requirement when a person claims adverse possession. However, the defendant has not made any categoric