Parties To Suit Can Take Alternative Pleas Provided They Are Not Mutually Destructive: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Justice Vivek Agarwal observed that the said liberty can be availed by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant to a suit-

The expression 'Alternative' means the one or the other of two things. A party to litigation may include in his pleadings two or more set of facts and claim relief in the alternative. "Inconsistent" on the other hand means mutually repugnant, contradictory or irreconcilable establishment of one necessarily implies abrogation or abandonment of other. The plaintiff may rely upon several different reliefs in the alternative. Similarly, the defendant can also raise several defences in the alternative. In instance for a suit for possession is maintainable on the basis of title or in the alternative on the basis of lease.

Facts of the case were that the Petitioner had instituted a suit against the Respondents for declaration of title regarding the suit property on the basis of a Will. Later, the Petitioner vide an application for amendment of issue sought to add a plea of ouster as an alternative. The said application was rejected by the lower court. Aggrieved, the Petitioner moved the Court.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court opined that the lower court had erred in not allowing the framing of an issue on the basis of an alternative plea of ouster. The Court held that the court below had overlooked the fact that parties can plead inconsistent or alternative pleas, but not to the extent of them being mutual destructive to each other.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the trial court to frame additional issue on the plea of ouster and proceed with the trial.