The relief of possession is embedded in the decree sought by the plaintiff in a suit for partition. It is not necessary for the Plaintiff to be in actual possession to seek a partition.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. - The appellant, who is the defendant in the suit, has preferred this intracourt appeal impugning the order dated 24.07.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS (OS) 292/2019, disposing of the interim application [I.A. No. 4686/2020] preferred by the Appellant seeking framing of additional issues.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as set out in the pleadings, are that the appellant is the daughter-in-law of the respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit. The appellant, her husband Mr. Praneet Gupta, and the respondent, jointly purchased the property bearing No. C-2/43, 2nd Floor, Safdarjung Development Area (SDA), New Delhi - 110016 (''suit property'') vide sale deed dated 04.02.2014. The said title document delineates the undivided shares of Mr Praneet Gupta, the respondent and the appellant in the ratio of 80:15:5, respectively. Vide gift deed dated 08.06.2018, Mr. Praneet Gupta gifted his 80% undivided share to the respondent. Subsequently, the respondent claiming to have 95% share in the suit property, filed the suit for partition.

3. In the written statement, filed in response to the plaint, appellant interalia, vehemently disputes and controverts the averments of the respondent/plaintiff qua possession of the suit property. She contends that the respondent has falsely alleged to be in actual physical possession of one room in the suit property. She also strongly refutes that respondent and his wife used to reside therein. She contends that the suit property was purchased for the use of Mr. Praneet Gupta and herself and it is they who along with their minor son, were residing therein. On 26.12.2017, Mr. Praneet Gupta shifted to residence of the respondent/plaintiff at C-4/107 Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi 110016 and the respondent/plaintiff has never been in physical possession of the suit property or any part thereof at any point of time.

4. On completion of pleadings, vide order dated 16.06.2020, issues were framed. According to the appellant, certain issues escaped consideration. She filed I.A. No. 4686/2020 seeking framing of additional issue. The prayer was declined, vide order impugned in the present appeal.

5. Mr. Virmani, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the additional issues urged by the appellant ought to be framed. According to him, the plaintiff/respondent is falsely claiming ownership to the extent of 95% in the suit property. Respondent''s assertion qua possession of one room in the suit property is also a false claim. He referred to the pleadings in the suit and pointed out that the appellant/defendant in her written statement had specifically disputed respondent''s possession and raised objection as to it''s maintainability. He submitted that since the appellant has categorically denied respondent/plaintiff''s physical possession on any part of the suit property, maintainability of the suit for partition without seeking the recovery of possession will be a necessary issue for it''s proper adjudication. He also urged that since material fact is in dispute, framing of additional issues is imperative, under Order XIV of the CPC.

6. Per contra, Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, learned counsel for the respondent who, appears on an advance notice, submitted that the issues as framed by this Court are sufficient to decide the real controversy between the parties. Mr. Jauhar, further submitted that issue no. 3 framed vide order dated 16.06.2020 which deals with valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction and Court fees would adequately take care of the apprehension and objection of the appellant. He further submitted that the findings and observations of the learned Single Judge are well founded, based on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Syed Shah Ghulam Ghouse Mohiuddin and Ors. vs. Syed Shah Ahmed Mohiuddin Kamisul Quadri(Died) Lrs and Ors, (1971) 1 SCC 597 and K