Telangana High Court
Vaddi Chowdaiah vs Gurram Ramesh on 20 January, 2025
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
Tr.C.M.P.No. 250 of 2024
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set
aside the order dated 01.05.2024 passed in Tr.O.P.No.3 of
2024 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he filed O.S.No.554
of 2019 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, R.R
District at L.B.Nagar for cancelation of registered
agreement of sale cum GPA dated 21.11.2008 and
registered sale deed dated 02.08.2019. He also filed
O.S.No.70 of 2020 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge,
Ranga Reddy District at Maheshwaram for permanent
injunction. Petitioner filed Tr.O.P.No.3 of 2024 seeking
transfer of O.S.No.70 of 2020 from the Court of Junior Civil
Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Maheshwaram to the Court
of I Additional District Judge, R.R District at L.B.Nagar.
3. In the written statement filed by respondent Nos.1 to
4 in O.S.No.70 of 2020, it was stated that petitioner was
not in possession of suit schedule property and alienated
the property to respondent No6 under sale deeds as
mentioned in O.S.No.554 of 2019. The trial Court held
that the existence of sale deeds is not in dispute but the
circumstances of the execution of the sale deeds are in
dispute. The issue in both the cases to be decided is
whether the suit schedule property is in possession of the
petitioner or in possession of respondent Nos.1 to 5,
whereas the issue in O.S.No.554 of 2019 is the validity of
the execution of deeds and it is to be decided, as such
there were no similar facts or issues to be adjudicated in
both the suits and thus there no common issues or facts
and thus the question of conflict in findings does not arise
and thus dismissed the petition.
4. Petitioner stated that his father is the absolute owner
and possessor of the suit schedule property. The Counsel
appointed by his father played fraud by colluding with one
Vijay Kumar and created alleged documents. When his
father realized the fraud played by his Counsel, he
approached the SRO, Maheshwaram on 08.04.2019 and
came to know that one Modini Vijay Kumar is doing Real
Estate Business and he is close friend of petitioner's
counsel, as such registered sale deed vide
Doc.No.13933/2019 dated 02.08.2018 was executed under
AGPA vide Doc.No.9787/2008 dated 20.11.2008 without
his knowledge and consent, as such petitioner filed
O.S.No.554 of 2019 on 10.06.2019 for cancellation of the
said registered sale cum GPA dated 20.11.2008 and
subsequent registered sale deed dated 02.08.2019. During
the pendency of the suit, respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are
brothers of earlier Counsel of petitioner along with
respondent Nos.3 and 4 tried to interfere into petitioner's
land and thus petitioner filed O.S.No.70 of 2020 for
permanent injunction. Later petitioner filed Tr.O.P.No.3 of
2024 for transfer of the same, but it was dismissed.
5. Petitioner further stated that the issue arose when he
filed the suit for cancellation of the illegal conveyance
deeds and when respondents tried to take illegal
possession of the suit property and thus he filed suit for
permanent injunction. Both the suits are interrelated and
the cause of action in both the suits is one and the same.
The witnesses in both the suits are one and the same.
There is possibility of conflict in judgments on the same
issues. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the
order of the trial Court.
6. Admittedly, the suit schedule property in both the
matters is one and the same. Petitioner herein initially
filed suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed and
also filed suit for permanent injunction. The parties in
both the matters are different but the suit schedule
property in both the suits is one and the same. Therefore,
to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and conflict in
judgments, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable
to transfer O.S.No.70 of 2020 from the Court of Junior
Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Maheshwaram to the
Court of I Additional District Judge, R.R District at
L.B.Nagar and the order of the trial Court is liable to be set
aside.
7. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition
is allowed by setting aside the order dated 01.05.2024
passed in Tr.O.P.No.3 of 2024 by the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at
L.B.Nagar. The suit vide O.S.No.70 of 2020 is ordered to
be transferred from the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Ranga
Reddy District at Maheshwaram to the Court of
I Additional District Judge, R.R District at L.B.Nagar There
shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 20.01.2025
CHS
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 20.01.2025
CHS
