C.R. No. 3457 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3457 of 2011 Date of Decision: May 24, 2011 Sunita …..Petitioner Vs. Mani Ram and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Shailender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner as plaintiff has filed a suit against her father Mani Ram for a declaration that she is owner in possession of 29 kanals 8 marlas of land described by specific khasra numbers on the basis of a family settlement and that the defendant- respondent No.1- Mani Ram has got no concern with the property in dispute. She has also claimed a prohibitory injunction against the defendant- respondent No.1 to the affect that he be restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. C.R. No. 3457 of 2011 [2] The application filed by respondents No.2 and 3, the wife and daughter of pre-deceased son of Mani Ram is allowed and they have been impleaded as parties in the suit on the ground that they have also got interest in the suit land as such they are necessary parties to the suit. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being plaintiff is “dominus litus” of her case and that she does not claim any right against the added defendants. It has also been argued that the total land owned by defendant- respondent No.1 Mani Ram is 68 kanals 18 marlas but she is claiming right only in 29 kanals 8 marlas of land without prejudice to the rights of the added defendant- respondents who also claimed right in the property being the widow and daughter of pre-deceased son of Mani Ram, defendant- respondent No.1. It has been argued that the nature of the suit will be altered in case the impugned order is not set aside. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The plaintiff has sought ownership in a portion of the land which stands in the name of Mani Ram- defendant- respondent No.1, claiming that the property is coparcenary property and that in family settlement, she being a coparcener, has been made owner of the property. The fact that property has been claimed to be coparcenary property and a family settlement having been arrived at between the family members, it becomes important for the plaintiff to establish the family settlement and the property being a coparcenary property. In a case in which the property is claimed to be coparcenary having been given to one of the coparcener in a family settlement it will always be necessary to implead C.R. No. 3457 of 2011 [3] the other family members as the rights of other family members on the basis of alleged family settlement is also required to be finally determined. In view of above circumstances, the presence of added respondents who are none else but members of the family being widow and daughter of pre-deceased son of defendant- respondent No.1 is necessary for the final adjudication of their entitlement in the total land which is claimed to be coparcenary property. No ground is made out for interference in the impugned judgment and decree. Counsel for the petitioner has made a request that an attempt should be made calling the parties for some amicable settlement. The said steps can always be taken by the trial Court for amicable settlement between the members of the family taking into consideration the provisions of Order 32 A Rule 6 CPC which imposes a duty on the Court to make efforts for settlement if the suit relates to the matter concerning the family. Dismissed with costs of ` 2000/-. Anything said in this order will not prejudice the rights of the parties. All observations made in this revision petition are only meant for the disposal of this revision petition. May 24, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE