The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between necessary and proper parties in a suit, and the binding nature of the relief of declaration only on the parties to the suit and persons claiming through them.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - The plaintiff has filed the present appeal assailing the correctness of the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below whereby his suit for grant of declaration, to the effect that he is the owner in possession of half share of property i.e House no.81 Sector 19 A Chandigarh, on the basis of memorandum of family settlement has been dismissed.

2. After having heard the learned counsel representing the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the following questions of law arise for consideration :-

A) In a suit for grant of declaration with respect to an exclusive inter se dispute between two brothers, whether the remaining family members or the State Government or the municipal authority are necessary parties?

B) Whether it is appropriate for the court to travel beyond the scope of the suit asserted in the pleadings of both the parties?

3. Some facts are required to be noticed. The appellant before this Court is the plaintiff (Indar Krishan Mehta). The defendant in the suit was late Shri Kewal Krishan Mehta, who is now represented by his legal representatives namely Smt. Saroj Mehta and Ms Monita Mehta. In the present case, the dispute is with respect to House No. 81 Sector 19 A Chandigarh. The plaintiff filed a suit claiming that the aforesaid the property was purchased jointly by Kewal Krishan Mehta and Indar Krishan Mehta and they collectively raised the construction on the property. Of course, as per the wishes of their father (Late Sh. H.R.Mehta) the property was purchased in the name of Sh. Kewal Krishan Mehta. Late Shri H.R Mehta has had four sons namely late Sh. Kewal Krishan Mehta, Sh. Indar Krishan Mehta, Sh. Baldev Krishan Mehta and Sh. Ravindra Krishan Mehta. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the interpretation of the memorandum of settlement dated 28.02.2001. The plaintiff claims that he is the owner in possession to the extent of half of the suit property, whereas, it is the stand of the defendant that the declaration has been sought by misinterpreting the memorandum of settlement of the suit property and the suit property was never intended to be partitioned. It is claimed that the suit property is exclusively owned by the defendant but it is admitted that the plaintiff and his spouse have right to live in the house as per the family settlement. It is also stated that as per the memorandum of family settlement, the plaintiff has failed to share the rental income of the house situated in village Manali, which is in the name of the plaintiff.

4. In fact, the registered memorandum of family settlement dated 28 February, 2001 between the plaintiff and the defendant is not a disputed document. Hence, it becomes important to extract the memorandum of family settlement:-

"Memorandum of Mutual family settlement & arrangement for future living between Kewal Krishan Mehta and Inder Krishan Mehta, Advocates, sons of Late Shri Hans raj Mehta, resident of H.No.81 Sector 19 - A, Chandigarh.

With the grace of God Almighty and blessings, we have lived together happily for last more than forty years. To keep the spirit alive in future and abide by our decision & family arrangement by way of private partition made in 1991-92 to live and work together jointly, we hereby record this Memorandum of mutal family settlement and living arrangement.

1. House No. 81, Sector 19 - A. Chandigarh. This house is owned by us jointly in equal share, although, the plot of land was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 18.1.1966 in the name of Kewal Krishan Mehta being the eldest son as desired by our parents. Our younger brothers Baldev Krishan Mehta & Ravinder Krishan Mehta, who are living in USA and settled their for more than 25 years have no right or claim thereto. We two have contributed jointly and equally towards the construction furniture, fixtures and fittings in the house on the plot from time to time. The maintenance and repair charges besides electricity and water bills are