Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M. Ramakrishna Sastry vs M. Seetaramaswamy And Anr. on 14 August, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996(1)ALT318
Author: Y.V. Narayana
Bench: Y.V. Narayana
ORDER Y.V. Narayana, J.
1. The defendant in O.S. No. 38 of 1993 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur filed this petition seeking transfer of O.S. No. 38 of 1993 to the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenali to be tried along with O.S. No. 56/90 pending in that Court.
2. The brief facts of the case are: The first respondent herein filed O.S. No. 56 of 1990 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenali to recover a sum of Rs. 93,445-90 said to be due to him from the petitioner on a settlement of account with regard to the income from his property that fell to his share in the earlier family partition. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S. No. 38 of 1993 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur seeking partition of the estate which fell to the share of their deceased father in the earlier family partition, into three equal shares and for separate possession of two such shares and for other reliefs. The petitioner submits that the evidence - both oral and documentary - in both the suits is one and the same and that the subject matter in both the suits is also same and as such he seeks transfer of O.S. No38 of 1993 from the Court of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur to the Court of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenali for being tried along with O.S. No. 56/90 which is pending.
3. Notice before admission was given to the respondents. The respondents filed counter-affidavit contending that the subject-matter and causes of action in the two suits are quite distinct and different; that there are no common or identical questions of law or fact involved in the two suits; that the parties are different; that there is no iota of commonness between the two suits; that this Tr.C.M.P. is filed only with a mala fide intention to protract the part-heard suit O.S. No. 56 of 1990; that this petition is devoid of merits and is not maintainable; hence the same may be dismissed.
4. O.S. No. 56 of 1990 is filed for recovery of some amount from the petitioner said to be due to the first respondent with regard to the settlement of account relating to the property which fell to the share of the first respondent in the earlier family partition. O.S. No. 38 of 1993 is filed by the two respondents against the petitioner for partition of the estate which fell to the share of their deceased father in the earlier family partition, for separate possession of two such shares and for other reliefs. Thus the causes of action, nature and character of the two suits are quite distinct and different.
5. The second respondent herein is not a party to O.S. No. 56 of 1990 and he has nothing to do with the reliefs sought for in that suit. Therefore the parties to the two suits are not common.
6. Thus the subject-matter, causes of action, nature and character of the suits are quite distinct and different and there are no common questions of law or facts involved in these two suits. There fore there is no necessity of common trial.
7. There are no merits in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed even before admission. No costs.