Civil Revision No.1886 of 2011 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1886 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.9.2011 Ankur Khullar and another ...Petitioners Versus Raj Rani and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The applicants-petitioners are aggrieved against the order dated 31.1.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.219A of 30.5.2008 titled Raj Rani Vs. Tarsem Kumar and others whereby application filed by them under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as defendants has been declined by the Trial Court. 2. Brief facts may be noticed. The applicants-petitioners are sons of Tarsem Kumar, defendant no.1. The petitioner's Aunt Raj Rani (sister of the applicants' father) has filed a suit for declaration that she is owner in possession of 1/4th share of the property left behind by her father Jagdish Rai. The petitioners-applicants filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading them as defendants on the ground that they are natural heirs of the property left by their grand father Jagdish Rai, who had after his death in the year 1991 left Tarsem Kumar (father of the applicants) as his coparcener as the entire property of Jagdish Rai had come to Tarsem Kaur being coparcener Civil Revision No.1886 of 2011 -2- **** by survivorship. It was also submitted that during the life time of Jagdish Rai, applicants acquired birth right being coparceners in the property in question. The respondent-plaintiff took the plea that application was filed by the applicants in connivance with their father to harass the plaintiff and to delay the decision of the suit. It was also submitted that applicants were neither necessary nor proper party as the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for her share only on the basis of natural succession and she has not claimed any relief against the applicants. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. Hence the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners submitted that petitioners were necessary and proper parties for proper adjudication of the dispute. It was claimed that the applicants-petitioners were having a right in the suit property as property was ownership of Jagdish Rai, grand father of the applicants and after his death in the year 1991 devolved upon Tarsem Kumar his only son by survivorship. The property being still joint, the applicants acquired right by birth being coparcener in the property in question. On the other, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that the property in dispute was not ancestral property in the hands of Jagdish Rai, her father and respondent-plaintiff was claiming on the basis of natural succession whereas Tarsem Kumar had set up a will in his favour. The plaintiff-respondent was not claiming any relief against the applicants-petitioners and as such they were not necessary and proper parties. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. 5. The Trial Court while declining the application noted that the claim of the petitioner-plaintiff is on the basis of natural succession whereas Tarsem Kumar had claimed Will in his favour. The plaintiff has Civil Revision No.1886 of 2011 -3- **** based her claim on the basis of class I heir and not on the basis of coparcenary property. The findings recorded are as under:- “From the perusal of the plaint, it is quite apparent that plaintiff has filed the instant suit on the basis of natural succession being daughter of Jagdish Rai while defendant No.1 Tarsem Kumar has set up a will in his favour. It is settled law that plaintiff is dominus litus i.e. master of his own case. In the present case, plaintiff has not sought relief on the basis of coparcenary right but has claimed her inheritance rights being Class-1 heir of deceased Jagdish Rai. Indisputably, the plaintiff has filed the present suit against all the class-I heirs of Jagdish Rai. Hence, applicants being sons of defendant No.1 need not be impleaded in the present suit and accordingly, application under reference is hereby dismissed.” 6. Learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners was unable to demonstrate that either the suit property in the hands of Jagdish Rai was coparcenary property in which petitioners had any right by birth or the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff had any rational or other basis which would connect the applicants-petitioners with the relief claimed in the suit. The applicants-petitioners, thus, could not be held to be either proper or necessary parties for being impleaded as defendants. No error or perversity could be pointed out in the impugned order. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. September 26, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge