Consistency in legal claims and amendments is essential for maintaining the integrity of proceedings.

ORDER :

S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.

1. These two writ petitions arise between the same parties out of the same proceedings. Therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Suit in O.S.No.4287 of 2000 was initially filed by Smt. P. Anita with a prayer to declare that she is entitled to 2/10^th share in the suit schedule property and to effect partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and she also had sought for a consequential relief of permanent injunction. The original defendant Nos.1 and 2 are brothers of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 to 6 are direct sisters. During the pendency of the suit, a Partition Deed was executed between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 21.08.2003 and defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the suit had signed the said Partition Deed as concurring witnesses. It appears that thereafter, the original plaintiff had filed a memo to dismiss the suit. The said memo was contested by defendant Nos.5 and 6 contending that plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 had colluded with each other and got executed the Partition Deed dated 21.08.2003 for which they were not parties and accordingly had prayed to transpose themselves as plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 in the suit. The application filed by defendant Nos.5 and 6 to transpose them as plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 was rejected by the trial Court and the same was challenged by them before this Court in W.P.No.13948 of 2008 and W.P.No.14094 of 2008. The said writ petition was allowed and defendant Nos.5 and 6 were transposed as plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.4287 of 2000. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 subsequently had filed two separate memos dated 21.07.2016 in O.S.No.4287 of 2000 to delete suit schedule Item Nos.7 to 9 properties. The said application was rejected by the trial Court vide the order dated 30.09.2020. Challenging the said order, defendant Nos.9 and 10 in O.S.No.4287 of 2000, who are the subsequent purchasers of Item Nos.7 to 9 of the suit schedule properties are before this Court in W.P.No.3795 of 2021.

3. After rejection of the memo's filed on behalf of plaintiff No.2 and 3 was rejected vide the order impugned dated 30.09.2020, plaintiff No.3 has filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to amend the plaint. The said application was opposed by the contesting defendant by filing objection. The trial Court, vide the order dated 07.10.2021 has rejected the said application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff No.3 is before this Court in W.P.No.21026 of 2021.

4. It is not in dispute that suit in O.S.No.4287 of 2000 was originally filed by Smt. Anita, who is the sister of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant Nos.3 to 6 are direct sisters. According to the plaintiff her father Prakash Reddy was entitled for 6/10^th share in the suit schedule property and after his death, she and defendant Nos.1 and 2 have succeeded to his share in the suit schedule property.

5. It appears that during pendency of the suit, a registered Partition Deed was executed between plaintiff No.1 and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant No.3 and 4 were concurring witnesses to the said partition deed. Since the plaintiff had thereafter filed a memo to dismiss the suit, defendants Nos.5 and 6 got themselves transposed as plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 in the suit and had filed application seeking amendment of the pleadings in the plaint in O.S.No.4287 of 2000 wherein, they had questioned the validity of the registered Partition Deed dated 21.08.2003. The said application was allowed which was questioned before this Court in W.P.No.13948 of 2008 and W.P.No.14094 of 2008 and this Court had allowed the said