JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - Defendants 1 to 3 have filed this writ application challenging the order dated 27.9.2004 passed by the Learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Cuttack in T.S. No. 146 of 2001 rejecting one of the applications filed for amendment of the written statement. From the impugned order it appears that two applications were filed for amendment of the written statement i.e. on 29.7.2004 and 1.9.2004 respectively. The first application for amendment filed on 29.7.2004 was allowed and the second application filed on 1.9.2004 was rejected. 2. The suit has been filed for partition of the suit properties described in the Schedule 'B' and the Plaintiff claims 1/4th share in the said schedule properties. The other prayer in the suit is for delivery of possession of the share that may be allowed to the Plaintiff through process of Court. The case of the Plaintiff is that she is the daughter of Dijabar Jethi and Defendants 1 and 2 are sons of said Dijabar Jethi. Their father died in the year 1983 leaving behind his widow, Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 and 2. It is also the case of the Plaintiff that Dija Jethi inherited vast landed properties in Cuttack town which were agricultural and lying follow. Dija Jethi could not earn enough from the said properties and started a business in vending fruits and out of the income from the said business he also purchased some agricultural lands outside Cuttack town. The Plaintiff got married in a poor family for which her father Dija Jethi used to help her throughout his lifetime. However, after death of Dija Jethi, the two sons did not keep relationship with her and deprived her of all rights over the properties. Accordingly, the suit was filed for partition. 3. A written statement was filed by the Defendants 1 to 3 and in paragraph 14(E) it was specifically pleaded by the said Defendants that the properties are the ancestral joint family homestead properties of the parties in which the Defendants got 15 annas share jointly and the Plaintiff has got one anna share. 3. A written statement was filed by the Defendants 1 to 3 and in paragraph 14(E) it was specifically pleaded by the said Defendants that the properties are the ancestral joint family homestead properties of the parties in which the Defendants got 15 annas share jointly and the Plaintiff has got one anna share. The said Defendants after sometime filed an application for amendment of the written statement and in the proposed amendment a plea was taken that even if the Plaintiff has any title in the suit schedule properties, the same has been lost in favour of the Defendants as the Plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land for more than 12 years and she has been ousted there from. The Defendants being in peaceful and continuous possession of the suit land for more than the statutory period as of right to the knowledge of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff not being in possession for more than 12 years, an indefeasible right by way of ouster in respect of share of the Plaintiff has accrued in favour of the Defendants by efflux of time. Said prayer for amendment having been rejected in the impugned order, this writ application has been filed. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proposed amendment in no way changes the nature and character of the suit properties. According to the Learned Counsel the proposed amendment is an alternate plea taken and therefore should not have been rejected. Reliance is placed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Darshan Singh and Others Vs. Gujjar Singh (Dead) by Lrs. and Others. Learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff-opp party, on the other hand, submitted that in the written statement the Defendants having admitted the claim of the Plaintiff for a share in the suit properties and there being no averment in the entire written statement of the effect that the Plaintiff is not in possession of her share, the proposed amendment would change the nature and character of the suit. Learned Counsel also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Ladha Ram and Co., and another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Haji Mohammed Ishaq Wd. S.K. Mohammed and Others Vs. Learned Counsel also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Ladha Ram and Co., and another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Haji Mohammed Ishaq Wd. S.K. Mohammed and Others Vs. Mohamad Iqbal and Mohamed Ali and Co., . 5. As is evident from the written statement the Defendants have admitted that they have got 15 annas share jointly and the Plaintiff has got one anna share. In paragraph 14(E) it is mentioned that the Plaintiff has got one anna share and her claim to get 1/4th share to the suit properties is not correct. There is nothing in the written statement to show that the Plaintiff was not in possession of her share or she had been ousted. In the proposed amendment a case is being introduced to say that the Plaintiff has lost right over her share, she having been ousted for more than 12 years. The decision relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is oh the question as to whether adverse possession can be claimed by a co sharer. The Apex Court in the said decision held that possession of the entire property by one co-sharer shall be deemed to be in possession of other co-sharers unless there a clear ouster by other co-sharer by denying title to other co-sharer. This decision has no application to the facts of the present case. From the language used in the proposed amendment it appears that the Defendants 1 to 3 claimed that the Plaintiff not being in possession for more than 12 years has lost her right over any share she is entitled to. This pleading does not amount to ouster. In the aforesaid decision ouster has been specifically pleaded. I am, therefore, of the view that the proposed amendment is not an alternate plea advanced by the Defendants but intention is to take away the effect of an admission made by the Defendants in the written statement. In this connection, the decision in the case of Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Ladha Ram & Co. (supra) is relevant. In this connection, the decision in the case of Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Ladha Ram & Co. (supra) is relevant. The Apex Court in the said case held that amendment introducing entirely different new case and seeking to displace the Plaintiff completely from admissions made by the Defendants in the written statement should not be allowed. A similar view has also been taken in the case of Haji Mohammed Ishaq Wd. S.K. Mohammed and Ors. v. Mohammed Iqbal and Mohammed Ali & Co.(supra). Reference may also be made to the case of B.K.N. Pillai v P Pilai and Anr. reported in 2000 SAR 128. The Apex Court in the said case has observed that amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Court further held that Defendant has a right to take alternative plea in defence. Such right, however, is subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment, other side should not be subjected to injustice and that any admission made in favour of Plaintiff is not withdrawn. The Court also observed that all amendments of pleadings should be allowed which are necessary for determination of the real controversies between the parties in the suit and the proposed amendment however should not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the original lis was raised or defence taken. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of fact should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment of the pleadings. 6. In view of the discussions made above, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed