Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.

The Defendant is the Applicant, who has filed the above Applications to permit him to make amendments in the Additional Written Statement, which has already been filed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking in the Suit.

3. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are brothers. The Suit is filed for Recovery of Possession from the Defendant and for Damages for use and occupation. The father of the Plaintiff and the Defendant died on 08.08.1987, leaving a Will behind. O.P. No. 108 of 2005 was filed by the Plaintiff for grant of Letters of Administration. As caveat was filed by the Defendant, the said Original Petition was converted into T.O.S. No. 34 of 2005 and the same was allowed on 15.06.2010. After the Letters of Administration was granted, the present Suit was filed by the Plaintiff for recovery' of possession in respect of the property allotted to him, under the Will.

4. Now, the Defendant has filed the following Amendment Applications:

(a) In the Amendment Application tiled by the Defendant in A. No. 8172 of 2016, it is stated that the Plaintiff cannot maintain the Suit for Recovery of Possession as he should only follow the directions given in the TOS about administering of the legacies left by the Testator.

(b) The Second Amendment sought for in A. No. 8173 of 2016, relates to a factual detail with respect to the Will, in which the actual measurement of the land, in respect of the Suit property has only 80 feet "North to South" but, as per the Will, the measurement comes to 82.5 feel. Therefore, the Will cannot be given effect to.

(c) The Third Amendment in A. No. 8174 of 2016 is with respect to Para No. 4 of the Additional Written Statement wherein, it is stated about the Family Arrangement that has been entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, after the demise of their father. As per the said Settlement, the Defendant had to occupy the front portion and the Plaintiff to occupy the rear portion of the Suit property.

5. The aforesaid Amendments sought for by the Defendant is vehemently opposed by the Plaintiff.

6. Heard both sides.

7. The issuance of grant of Letters of Administration in T.O.S. No.34 of 2005 dated 15.06.2010 is admitted by both the parties. It is also admitted that there was no Appeal against the same. The Plaintiff seems to have issued a Legal Notice to deliver the portion of the property as per the bequest made. Since there was no response, another Notice was also sent by the plaintiff as the request of the Plaintiff was not heeded to, the Suit has been filed and at the fag end of trial, these Applications have been filed by the Defendant. However, it is admitted by the learned Counsel for the Defendant that the evidence is complete and the Suit is posted for final arguments and only at that stage, these Applications were numbered and the amendments to the Additional Written Statement already filed, are sought for.

8. The Amendments sought for by the Defendant are on the merits of the case, which can be urged even at the time of arguments. The said Amendments are sought for on the factual details, which were available to the Defendant, even at the time of the filing of the Suit. Earlier, the Defendant was allowed to file an Additional Written Statement. Even at that point of time, the Defendant could have added these details. Having failed to do so, after the evidence in the case is complete, the above Applications have been filed, which cannot be allowed at the post-trial stage.

9. The learned Counsel for the Defendant places reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Baldev Singh and others, etc. v. Manohar Singh and another, etc., AIR 2006 SC 2832, and contended that it is open to the Defendant to take inconsistent pleas in the Written Statement although the same may not be permissible in case of a Plaint. However, in the very same Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court