Civil Revision No. 6796 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6796 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.4.2010 Shri Prem Narayan .. Petitioner v. The Municipal Council Ambala Sadar, Ambala Cantt. and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No. 3. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The plaintiff is before this Court impugning the order dated 27.10.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by respondent No. 3 for being impleaded in a suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, was accepted. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for mandatory injunction seeking direction against the Municipal Council for transfer of the property owned by his deceased father-Ramji Lal in his favour on the basis of a registered will executed by his widowed mother, as the property in question had been bequeathed by the father of the petitioner- Ramji Lal in favour of his widow- Shanti Devi, mother of the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, application was filed by respondent No. 3 for being impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit claiming himself to be grand-son of Ramji Lal, whose property is in dispute. It was stated by him in the application that the alleged will projected by the petitioner-plaintiff was forged document. The property being ancestral and co- parcenary joint Hindu family property in the hands of deceased-Ramji Lal, the same having been inherited by him from his father-Kalu Mal, respondent No. 3 was also entitled to share therein. The learned court below having accepted the prayer made, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the application filed by respondent No. 3 seeking his impleadment as defendant in the suit, it was stated that Ramji Lal died intestate. However, still reliance was sought to be placed Civil Revision No. 6796 of 2009 [2] on an un-registered will dated 6.5.1970, which did not see the light of the day till such time the application was filed even though Ramji Lal expired on 25.9.1980. He further submitted that if respondent No. 3 wants to claim any relief for himself, he has a right to file a suit independently. The plaintiff in a suit is a dominus litus. He cannot be compelled to contest suit against any person against his wishes. All what the petitioner is praying in the suit filed by him is the transfer of property in his name. In any case, it is not going to prejudice the claim of respondent No. 3 in any manner, as his rights could be determined in a separate suit, in case he wishes to file the same. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that the property in question being joint Hindu family property, which was inherited by deceased-Ramji Lal, father of the petitioner and grand father of respondent No. 3 from his father-Kalu Mal, respondent No. 3 has right to share the same, as it could not be transferred by way of a will by deceased-Ramji Lal. In case the property in question is transferred in the name of the petitioner on the basis of the will projected by him, that would unnecessarily complicate the issue, as the right of respondent No. 3 is required to be determined. In case a separate suit is filed, the same will result in multiplicity of litigation. Once a suit regarding the same property is pending, respondent No. 3 can at least raise his defences seeking rejection of the claim made by the petitioner-plaintiff for transfer of the property in his individual name, even if he may or may not be able to claim any relief for himself in the suit. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the impugned order passed by the learned court below does not call for any interference. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent No. 3, who has been impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit, are common ancestors from Ramji Lal, whose property is in dispute. The prayer made by the petitioner-plaintiff in the suit is for transferring the entire property in his name on the basis of a will projected by him. His case is that Ramji Lal, being owner of the property, had bequeathed the same in favour of his wife, who had further given the same to the petitioner-plaintiff by way of a registered will. The case set up by respondent No. 3 is that the property having been inherited by Ramji Lal from his father-Kalu Mal, he being common ancestor to both the parties, respondent No. 3 is also having right in the property involved in the suit. In case, in the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff the property is transferred in his sole name without considering the claim to be set up by respondent No. 3, the same will certainly complicate the issue further and it would be appropriate if respondent No. 3 is Civil Revision No. 6796 of 2009 [3] impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit to project his case before the court. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned court below. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 22.4.2010 mk