IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2109 of 1999 DATE OF DECISION : 09.10.2009 Dhanwant Singh and another ... PETITIONERS Versus Gurdial Singh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. In this revision petition, the dispute is in between the real brothers. Three brothers (respondents No.1 to 3 herein) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against their father (respondent No.4 herein) to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of an oral family partition/settlement and entry of the name of their father in the column of ownership and possession of the said land in the revenue record is wrong. They also prayed for decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant (father) from interfering in their possession over the suit land. In the said suit, the defendant (father) filed the admitted written statement. He also made a statement to the said effect in CR No. 2109 of 1999 -2- the court. At that stage, the petitioners herein, who are the remaining two brothers of the plaintiffs, filed an application for impleading them as party in the suit, as in case the suit was decreed, their interest was going to be effected. In the application, it has been averred that the land in question is Joint Hindu Family/ancestral property, and the applicants are having interest in the same being coparceners. It is alleged that the defendant (father) is the Karta of the family and he has no legal right to alienate/transfer the suit land in favour of three sons by way of collusive suit, ignoring the claim of the applicants. It is further alleged that there was no family settlement and without there being any family settlement, the suit land can not be transferred in favour of three brothers, therefore, the applicants were necessary parties. The trial court dismissed the application while observing that in the revenue record, the defendant (father) is recorded as owner in possession of the suit land and the petitioners have no concern with the suit land. It was further held that if the defendant (father) wants to accept the claim of the plaintiffs on the suit land, the applicants cannot oppose the same, therefore, they are not necessary party, as no relief has been claimed by the plaintiffs against them. Against the said order, the instant revision petition has been filed. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order. In my opinion, the impugned order passed by the trial court cannot be sustained, as the applicants are the necessary parties and without impleading them, the suit cannot be effectively decided. The plaintiffs have CR No. 2109 of 1999 -3- filed suit regarding the suit land on the basis of the family settlement. In the absence of the applicants, the issue of family settlement cannot be decided, because they are the real brothers of the plaintiffs. Though in the revenue record, the suit land has been recorded to be owned by the defendant (father), but it is always open for the members of the Joint Hindu Family to prove that the suit land is a joint hindu family/coparcenary property. In the absence of the applicants, all these issues cannot be decided. The observation of the trial court that the applicants can file separate suit challenging the alienation should not be accepted, because it will lead to multiplicity of litigation, which should always be avoided. Therefore, all the disputes between the real brothers and the father should be decided in this very suit, so that multiplicity of litigation between the family members can be curtailed. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the applicants are the necessary and proper parties in the suit. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside; the application filed by the applicants is allowed and they are impleaded as defendants No.2 and 3 in the suit. The trial court is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law and decide the same expeditiously. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on December 10, 2009. October 09, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE