ORDER : This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21-11-2014 passed on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.1783/2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. 2. Petitioner is defendant No.4 and respondents No.1 to 3 are plaintiffs in O.S.No.1783/2006 filed for judgment and decree of partition and separate possession of half share in the schedule properties. Father of the petitioner who was the original defendant filed written statement contending that they have perfected their title by adverse possession and they are in exclusive possession of the property. Issues were framed and the plaintiffs lead their evidence. Plaintiffs were cross-examined by the defendants. At the stage of commencement of defendants’ evidence, the defendant No.1(c) filed I.A.No.7 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking to amend the written statement to include the averment in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.49, measuring 2 acres 36 guntas situated at Sadahalli village, Bassettihalli Hobli, Siddlaghatta Taluk standing in the name of Sri.Hanumanthappa S/o.Sonnappa, Sri.Anjanappa S/o.Sonnappa, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 herein and Sri.Chikkanjinappa S/o.Sonnappa. Further, defendant No.4 also sought to include the schedule to the written statement i.e. property bearing Sy.No.49 measuring 2 acres 36 guntas situated at Sadahalli village, Bassettihalli Hobli, Siddlaghatta Taluk which is also joint family property standing in the name plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. The said application was resisted by the plaintiffs stating that the defendants are not diligent in prosecuting the case. The defendants did not raise this contention earlier i.e., during the lifetime of defendants’ father who was the original defendant. Further it is stated that 4th defendant and other legal representatives of defendant No.1 had filed additional written statement in the year 2010 and at the time of filing the additional written statement also they had not taken the contention of availability of joint family property which they now intend to include. It is further contended that the defendants cannot take inconsistent defense. The trial Court, on consideration of rival contentions, by its order dated 21-11-2014 rejected I.A.No.7 filed for amendment of written statement which is impugned in this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the writ papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the legal representatives of defendant No.1 came on record in the year 2010 and they had filed additional written statement in the year 2010. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the writ papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the legal representatives of defendant No.1 came on record in the year 2010 and they had filed additional written statement in the year 2010. It is contended that at that time, the availability of the property bearing Sy.No.49 to an extent of 2 acres 36 guntas situated at Sadahalli village, Bassettihalli Hobli, Siddlaghatta Taluk was not within their knowledge. It is further stated in the affidavit filed in support of amendment application that the property bearing Sy.No.49 is joint family property and the plaintiffs have not included the same in the suit, which stands in the name of plaintiffs No.2 and 3. It is further stated that since their father was looking after the family affairs, they were not aware of the properties belonging to their family. Recently they came to know that Sy.No.49 measuring 2 acres 36 guntas is also joint family property which stands in the name of plaintiffs 2 and 3. It is further stated that existence of the said property could not be ascertained in spite of due diligence at the time of filing of additional written statement. 5. The suit is one for partition. In a suit for partition, all the properties of the family are to be included. It is an admitted fact that the father of the defendants i.e. Maddurappa died in the year 2010 and his legal representatives were brought on record in the year 2010. Defendant No.4 is also one of the legal representatives of Maddurappa. As stated in the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application that in spite of due diligence, the existence of the property bearing Sy.No.49 could not be ascertained while filing additional written statement. It is further stated that the property bearing Sy.No.49 stands in the names of plaintiffs 2 and 3 which is the joint family property. It is also stated that the father of 4th defendant was looking after the family affairs and the legal representatives were not aware of all the properties belonging to the joint family. 6. Order VI Rule 17 of CPC provides for amendment of pleadings. It is also stated that the father of 4th defendant was looking after the family affairs and the legal representatives were not aware of all the properties belonging to the joint family. 6. Order VI Rule 17 of CPC provides for amendment of pleadings. In a case of post trial amendment, the party seeking amendment has to establish before the Court that in spite of due diligence, he could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. In the case on hand, the defendant who intends to amend the written statement has stated that they have come on record in the year 2010 and at the time of filing additional written statement, they were not aware of all the properties belonging to the family. When it came to their knowledge, they filed the present application for amendment. Therefore, I am of the view that defendant No.4 has assigned reasons as to why they could not raise the matter before commencement of trial. 7. With regard to the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants cannot be permitted to take inconsistent defense, I am of the view that they can take inconsistent defense. In the case on hand, earlier the defendants had taken a contention that the property sought for partition is in their exclusive possession and they have perfected their title by adverse possession. By amendment they are seeking to add one more property which according to them is a joint family property. The finding of the trial Court that if the application is allowed, it amounts to reopening of the case cannot be a reason to reject the application for amendment, when the party who seeks amendment has assigned proper reasons. Further, the reasons have been assigned as to why they could not take up the present defense when they filed additional written statement. Therefore, in my opinion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 21-11-2014 is set aside. I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.1783/2006 is allowed permitting the defendants to amend the written statement.