The onus of proof in property disputes lies with the party claiming entitlement, and issues framed by the Trial Court must not be used to deny a party's claim under Order XV-A of the CPC.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-02, (South), Saket District Courts, dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to be as 'CPC') in suit being CS No. 7391/2016, titled Jaswant Kaur Soor vs. Krishan Lal Gulati.

2. The above suit has been filed by the petitioner herein praying for the following relief:-

"[i] Pass a decree of possession in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in respect of the property bearing No.14-A First Floor, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi 110029 more specifically shown in Red and Green colour in the site plan;

[ii] Pass a decree for recovery of Rs.2,76,000/- [Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Only] being the arrears of rent from October 2013 to 01.08.2015 [23 months @ Rs.12,000/- per month] in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant;

[iii] Award pendent lite and future mesne profits/ damages @ Rs.1,000/- per day from 06.04.2014 till date of actual handing over of vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property by the Defendant;

[iv] Award interest @ 12% p.a. from the date the amounts become due and payable by the Defendant;

[v] Award costs of the suit in favour of the Plaintiff;"

3. The suit has been filed by the petitioner claiming that her husband, Late Sh. Amrik Singh Soor, had purchased the subject property being 14A, First Floor, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi-110029 vide a registered Sale Deed dated 21.11.2000. At this stage itself I may note that it is the case of the petitioner that the date of 21.11.2000 was in fact, mentioned due to a typographical error in the plaint and the actual date of the Sale Deed is 21.11.2002. She submits that the Sale Deed dated 21.11.2002 was filed by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court along with the plaint.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent is the erstwhile lessee in the suit property under an unregistered Lease Deed dated 15.11.2011. The petitioner claims that the rent of the tenanted premises was Rs. 12,000/- per month.

5. The plaint further asserts that the husband of the petitioner herein passed away in January, 2013, whereafter the suit property was mutated in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has also been paying the house tax on the said property.

6. It is claimed that the petitioner served a legal notice dated 28.04.2014 on the respondent inter-alia calling upon the respondent to handover vacant physical possession of the premises, however, on refusal of the respondent to do so, filed the suit in which the order impugned herein has been passed.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent at the outset submits that the petitioner has made averments in the petition beyond the pleadings before the learned Trial Court. He submits that in the petition, the date of the Sale Deed in favour of late Shri Amrik Singh Soor has been mentioned as 21.11.2002, whereas, admittedly in the plaint, it was mentioned as 21.11.2000. Further, there was no averment made with respect to the Will dated 18.06.2002 in the plaint.

8. I have considered the said submissions, however, find no merit in the same.

9. As far the discrepancy in the date of the Sale Deed is concerned, it is indeed correct that the plaint mentions the date of the Sale Deed as 21.11.2000. The respondent herein, in his written statement, has denied the Sale Deed dated 21.11.2000. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was clearly a typographical error in the plaint inasmuch as the Sale Deed is dated 21.11.2002 and in fact, the original of the Sale Deed dated 21.11.2002 was filed by the petitioner alongwith the plaint. Once this discrepancy was noticed and pointed out by the respondent, by the order dated 09.03.2006, the petitioner submitted that there was no need to amend the plaint inasmuch as it is only a minor typographical error as the original reg