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. 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 application and remitted the matter to the trial Court to consider the writ petition filed on behalf of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 afresh. 6. It appears that thereafter the applications filed by plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 seeking amendment of the plaint was withdrawn and on the other hand they had filed two separate memo's dated 21.07.2016 with a prayer to delete Item Nos.7 and 9 of the suit schedule properties. 6. It appears that thereafter the applications filed by plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 seeking amendment of the plaint was withdrawn and on the other hand they had filed two separate memo's dated 21.07.2016 with a prayer to delete Item Nos.7 and 9 of the suit schedule properties. It is relevant to note here that after execution of the Partition Deed dated 21.08.2003, plaintiff No.1 had sold Item Nos.7 to 9 of the suit schedule property and the purchasers of the said property are now impleaded as defendant Nos.7 to 14 in the suit. The plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 appears to have subsequently executed Confirmation Deed in respect of the sale deed which were executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of the purchasers, who are subsequently impleaded as party defendants to the suit. It is under these circumstances it appears that two separate memo's dated 21.07.2016 were filed in O.S.No.4287 of 2000 by plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 with a prayer to delete Item Nos.7 to 9 of the suit schedule property. The said application was contested by defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the suit. 7. After the memos dated 21.07.2016 filed by plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 seeking deletion of Item Nos.7 and 9 properties were rejected, plaintiff No.3 has filed application seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating a prayer challenging the registered Partition Deed dated 21.08.2003 which was executed between plaintiff No.1 and defendant Nos.1 and 2, for which defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the concurring witnesses. Plaintiff No.3 has also made a prayer in the amendment application to permit her to incorporate additional prayers challenging the sale deeds which are executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of the purchasers who are subsequently impleaded as party defendants in the suit. Therefore, it is apparent that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 who had filed memos seeking deletion of Item Nos.7 to 9 of the suit schedule properties have virtually abandoned their prayer made in the memo's and application is thereafter filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to permit plaintiff No.3 to incorporate additional prayers in the plaint by challenging the registered Partition Deed dated 21.08.2003 and the registered Sale Deeds executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of the purchasers who are subsequently impleaded as party defendants to the suit. 8. 8. From the aforesaid it is apparent that the interest of plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 in the suit is not common. There is a conflict of interest between plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. 9. It is also relevant to note here that based on the rival pleadings of the parties the trial Court has framed as many as 15 issues initially and thereafter certain additional issues were also raised based on the amended pleadings. The additional issues framed in the suit reads as follows. "ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the Registered Sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.7 to 9 are not binding on them? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the Registered Sale deed executed by Defendant No7 in favour of defendant no.11 is not binding on them? 3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the Registered Sale deeds executed by defendant NO 8 in favour of defendant No 9 and 11 are not binding on them? 4. Whether the plaintiff No 2 and 3 prove that Registered Sale deed executed by the first plaintiff in favour defendant No.8 is not binding on them? 5. Whether the Plaintiff No. 2 and 3 proves that the partition deed dated: 21.08.2003 executed between plaintiff No.1, defendant No. 1 and 2 is not binding on them? IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE. ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is for partial partition and same is not maintainable as contended by defendant no.2 in his written statement? 2) Whether suit of the plaintiffs and counter claim of the defendants no.3 & 4 is hit by law of estoppel? 3) Whether the defendant nos.3 & 4 are entitled for 1/5 th share each in the suit schedule properties as per their counter claim?" 10. From a reading of additional issues framed in the suit, it is apparent that there are certain issues with regard to the registered Sale Deed executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos.7 to 9. It also appears that defendants Nos.3 and 4 have made a counter claim in respect of the suit schedule property. From a reading of additional issues framed in the suit, it is apparent that there are certain issues with regard to the registered Sale Deed executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos.7 to 9. It also appears that defendants Nos.3 and 4 have made a counter claim in respect of the suit schedule property. The trial Court having appreciated this aspect of the matter, in view of the objections raised by defendant Nos.3 and 4, who apparently have made a counter claim in respect of the suit schedule property, has refused to accept the memo's dated 05.05.2023 filed on behalf of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 seeking deletion of Item Nos.7 to 9 of the suit schedule property. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said order. 11. After dismissal of the memo's dated 21.07.2016, application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC were filed on behalf of plaintiff No.3 seeking permission to amend the plaint by incorporating prayers challenging the registered Partition Deed dated 21.08.2003 and also the sale deed executed by plaintiff No.1 and defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the purchasers pendente lite who have been subsequently impleaded as party defendant Nos.7 to 14 in the suit. 12. It is trite that plaintiffs cannot take inconsistent stand. The proposed amendment is inconsistent to the prayer made by the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 in the memo's dated 21.07.2016, which was rejected by the trial Court vide the order impugned dated 30.09.2020 which is challenged in W.P.No.3795 of 2021. The plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are trying blow hot and cold. At one juncture having raised a contention that the Item Nos.7 to 9 of the suit schedule property are required to be deleted from the suit schedule in view of the sale of the said properties by plaintiff no.1, they now intend to question the very registered Partition Deed dated 21.08.2003 based on which plaintiff no.1 executed sale deeds in favour of defendant, who have subsequently impleaded in the suit. Additionally a prayer is also made to permit plaintiff No.3 to question the very sale deeds which have been executed by plaintiff no.1 in favour of subsequent purchasers. The Trial Court was therefore fully justified in rejecting the application filed by plaintiff No.3 to amend the plaint. Additionally a prayer is also made to permit plaintiff No.3 to question the very sale deeds which have been executed by plaintiff no.1 in favour of subsequent purchasers. The Trial Court was therefore fully justified in rejecting the application filed by plaintiff No.3 to amend the plaint. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said order passed by the Trial Court. I do not find any good reasons to interfere with the orders impugned in these two petitions. 13. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.