Yes, absolutely. I'll use Fiore as an example. His Flower of Battle, one of the better known "fight books" in the modern era, has quite an extensive section on it with two handed swords. Known as "close plays" they all involve weapon binds or grappling, in some cases including gripping your opponent's sword (I'm assured that so long as you grip hard enough that their sword can't move you won't be cut). In fact, grappling comes into play with almost every weapon in Fiore's system of battle, which shouldn't be surprising as it is based on grappling in the first place.

Fiore was not alone, however. A century later and in Germany, we have Talhoffer, whose fight book also relied heavily on grappling and weapon binds, though his book contains much less in the way of instruction and is more of a reminder to pupils who have already studied/are currently studying under him than an actual manual. Still, it is quite valuable for the drawings of the positions and methods of attack and defence.

Grappling was a big part of armed combat until the late 18th Century, when it died out as being unsuited to the gentlemanly nature of aristocratic sword duels of that era. Well, to be honest, it probably died out because gentlemen stopped actually wearing swords day-to-day, and the risk of random sword encounters on the street dropped dramatically ...Because it did in fact continue after that, but migrated into more brawlish cane fighting systems like Bartitsu that were more likely to see street application. But sword fencing from the late 18th Century onward aspired to a certain academic and aristocratic purity that did not admit the use of your hands directly against the opponent. (Applying your hands directly to your opponent was often the offense that got you into a duel in the first place, so it was unlikely to be a seen as an appropriate way out of a duel.)

But in the late 17th and early 18th Centuries, the prospect of armed street fights that were unregulated by aristocratic codes of honour was still deemed sufficiently probable, that fencing curricula includes a variety of weapon seizures, joint locks, and even throws that were designed to terminate armed encounters without necessarily skewering your opponent, with all the legal awkwardness that could entail.

The primary purpose of these moves was to disarm the opponent. One of the last fencing masters to treat the subject at any great length was Labat, who published in the 1690s and and whose book includes numerous illustrations of disarms. Usually I can find illustrations online to link to, but I'm not finding any good ones in this case, so I will suggest Egerton Castle's Schools and Masters of Fencing (pp. 154-155, for example) if you can't find the original manuscript reproduced anywhere. As grappling goes, these moves are illustrated in a fairly genteel way, with the off-hand grab often seizing the base of the opposing blade rather than the opponent directly.

It's hard to say how often they actually went down so elegantly. Stanley Kubrick threw one of them into the sword fight choreography of Barry Lyndon, and it suited his story telling to keep it neat and tidy. But that's art, not history. The infamous duel between Lord Byron and Mr. Chaworth in a candle-lit tavern room is more gritty, with Chaworth's attempted off-hand block failing, and in the ensuing tussle Byron "shortened his sword" (that is, grasping it in the fashion of a spear) to mortally stab Chaworth in the belly before the latter disarmed him. Chaworth died from his wounds, and Byron went to the Tower, and then to trial before the House of Lords, eventually paying his way to freedom, as Peers could do. It was an ugly and controversial duel, with none of the elegance of Labat's illustrations.

Follow up question: when I was studying aikijutsu, my instructor (who was pleasantly heavy on the lore, so to speak) told us that the Japanese grappling arts that evolved into jiujitsu, judo, aikido, etc. all evolved from roots in armed combat as backup techniques used to disarm an opponent in close quarters (hence the preponderence of wrist, elbow, and shoulder joint locks) or else survive/continue fighting after being disarmed oneself. Does anyone know if this is historically accurate or not?

I know there have already been some good responses here but I just wanted to add that grappling did become especially common in the later Middle Ages (14th-15th century) as armor became more advanced and consequently two-handed weapons like longswords and pole-arms also became more common because a lot of soldiers and especially knights were well-armored enough that they no longer felt they needed to use a shield all the time. There is a historian and archaeologist named Matt Easton who wrote his dissertation on 14th and 15th century armor and he also runs a historical fencing and sword fighting group that closely follows historical European fighting treatises and he also has a large Youtube channel where he talks a lot about many different aspects of medieval sword fighting. He has made some videos about European longswords where he makes the point that longswords specifically were only relatively common in late medieval Europe from about the mid 14th century to the mid 15th century which is also exactly the height of European full-body plate armor and one of the main reasons for this connection seems to be that knights would often use them without shields while their other gauntleted hand would be used for grappling. This is why so many of the longsword treatises like what /u/Hergrim linked to are from that period and use longswords to grapple a lot, but that would have been less common with other types of weapons in earlier periods.

A great example of this is a famous duel fought in 1386 between the two French knights Jacques Le Gris and Jean de Carrouges. After fighting on horseback with first lances and then both shields and axes, both their horses were killed and they ended up on foot with each of them just using a sword. Neither was able to do any damage through the other's armor for a while until Le Gris managed to stab Carrouges in a weak spot in his thigh. At that point Carrouges tackled Le Gris, managing to knock him over and pin him on the ground with him sitting on top and Le Gris unable to throw him off because of the weight of his armor and exhaustion. But even then Carrouges was still unable to penetrate or find a weak spot in Le Gris' armor using his sword and he eventually ended up using his sword hilt to hammer open the lock on Le Gris' helmet visor and then use his dagger to stab him in the face and neck (Jager, pp. 174-179). Fallen knights were often killed in this way after falling and being immobilized so that (sometimes lighter) troops could grapple with/grab them and break open their helmets such as at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415.

Sources:

The Last Duel: A true story of crime, scandal, and trial by combat in medieval France by Eric Jager