1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.367 OF 2022
ORDER:-
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2) Having regard to the prayer in the petition and
contents of the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, this
application can conveniently be disposed at the admission stage
itself.
3) This is a transfer petition filed on behalf of the
petitioner with a prayer to withdraw A.S.No.54 of 2012 on the
file of the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur and
to transfer the same to this Court.
4) The brief averments, which are necessary to decide
this application, can be summarized as follows:
The petitioner originally filed O.S.No.400 of 2011 against
two respondents viz., Velpula Obaiah @ Obulesu and Velpula
Raja Narasimha Narendra, with a prayer to grant a decree of
permanent injunction in respect of the subject matter of the
property therein. He filed the said suit on the file of the Junior
Civil Judge, Proddatur. Subsequently, the said suit was
transferred to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, 2
according to the orders of the District Court in T.O.P.No.507 of
2011. The petitioner also filed another suit in O.S.No.210 of
2008 along with his two brothers viz., Velpula Sreenivasulu and
Velpula Prabhakar. Velpula Sreenivasulu and Velpula Prabhakar
are the first plaintiff and second plaintiff and the present
petitioner is third plaintiff in the said suit. They filed the said
suit seeking partition of the properties. Later, according to the
orders in T.O.P.No.507 of 2011, both the suits were decided by
way of common judgment on 21.09.2012. The learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur dismissed the said suits by virtue
of the common judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the present
petitioner filed A.S.No.54 of 2012 as against the judgment in
O.S.No.400 of 2011, on the file of the II Additional District
Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, as the said Court has the original
appellate jurisdiction. The present petitioner along with his two
brothers filed A.S.No.1053 of 2012 against the judgment in
O.S.No.210 of 2008, before this Court, as this Court has the
original jurisdiction. Both the original suits have a common
question of law and facts and the parties are also one and the
same. Hence, it is appropriate to withdraw A.S.No.54 of 2012
on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at 3
Proddatur and to transfer the same to this Court to hear along
with A.S.No.1053 of 2012 to avoid any conflicting decisions. The
Appeal Suit No.54 of 2012 is posed for judgment. Hence, the
petition.
5) Now the simple question falls for consideration in
this petition at the admission stage is as to whether this petition
is maintainable in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances
appearing from the record?
Point:
6) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend
according to the averments contained in the affidavit. This Court
has carefully looked into the issue.
As seen from the copy of schedule in O.S.No.400 of 2011,
it is described as hereunder:
Kadapa District, Proddatur Sub-District, Rajupalem Mandal, Pottipadu Village, the landed property situated in S.No.110-2A to the extent of Ac.02-00 cents and S.No.110-2C to the extent of Ac.01-43 cents consisting one plot measuring to the total extent of Ac.03-43 cents or 1.388 hectors bounded as follows:
East : Land of Nallbothula Ramakka.
West : Land of Gouru Chinna Konda Reddy.
North : Rastha.
South : Land of Papi Reddy.
4
Within these boundaries the above landed property is situated with all easement rights.
Present market value is Rs.3,00,000/-.
As seen from the copy of schedule in O.S.No.210 of 2008,
the schedule is described as hereunder:
Kadapa District, Proddatur Sub-District of Kadapa District, Proddatur Municipality, Kesanna Satram Street, the house bearing old D.No.2/297 new D.No.2/450 and D.No.2/450/1 including ground floor and first floor hectors bounded as follows:
East : Rasta.
West : Rasta.
North : Tiny Sheet shed of Panyam Hussain.
South : Joint wall of Gona Subba Reddy.
East to West 45 feet and North to South 26 ¾ feet with upstairs and with RCC roof house, situated with all easement rights.
Present market value is Rs.12,08,000-00.
7) So, it appears that the properties in both suits are
different. Of course, there was an order from the District Court
in T.O.P.No.507 of 2011 for conducting the joint trial. It is not
within the provisions of this Court now to look into the propriety
and legality of the order in T.O.P.No.507 of 2011 as in
pursuance of the same, a common judgment was delivered
already. However, now the fact remained is that the scope to 5
decide the A.S.No.54 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional
District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, is very limited to ascertain
the possession of the appellant therein as on the date of the suit
in respect of the schedule property therein. The scope of appeal
in A.S.No.1053 of 2012 pending before this Court is totally
different to go into elaborately as to the title of the plaintiffs and
their claim for partition. Leave apart all these things, it is the
petitioner, who approached the learned II Additional District
Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur by filing A.S.No.54 of 2012 and the
appellants in their wisdom chosen this forum to file A.S.No.1053
of 2012 rightly challenging the decree in A.S.No.210 of 2008
declining to grant the relief of partition. Apart from this, the
petitioner kept quite all these period and he pursued A.S.No.54
of 2012 before the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa
at Proddatur even by getting arguments advanced, as such, is
coming for judgment, as fairly admitted by the petitioner in the
averments in the petition.
8) Having regard to the above, I am of the considered
view, that the petitioner having filed appeal in A.S.No.54 of
2012 and having got advanced the arguments, he cannot knock
the doors of this Court at fagend. In my considered view, no 6
prejudice is going to be caused to the parties even if
A.S.No.1053 of 2012 and A.S.No.54 of 2012 are decided by
different forums.
9) In the light of the above, I am of the considered
view, that this petition in the light of the peculiar facts and
circumstances, can be disposed at the admission stage itself has
not maintainable.
10) In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous
Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if
any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt.01.11.2022.
PGR 7
13
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Tr.C.M.P.NO.367 OF 2022
Date: 01.11.2022
PGR
