Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Alladi Buchi Raju vs Uppu Sunitha on 19 November, 2020
Author: R.Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R.Raghunandan Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Tr.C.M.P.No.360 of 2018
ORDER:
The defendants in O.S.No.74 of 2017 in the Court of the IX Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, have filed the present Transfer C.M.P., for transferring the suit to any Court at Visakhapatnam.
The plaintiffs/respondents herein are the daughters of the 1st and 2nd petitioners herein. They had filed the above suit for partition of the property that is claimed to be the family property consisting of about 24 items of property.
Sri T.M.K. Chaitanya, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that out of the said 24 items of property only 5 items of property are coming within the jurisdiction of the Court at Rajamahendravaram while 19 items of property are falling within the jurisdiction of the Court at Visakhapatnam. He submits that any order passed in the case would affect a large number of properties in Visakhapatnam and the parties will have difficulty in implementation of the order passed by the Court at Rajamahendravaram. He further submits that petitioners 1 and 2 are more than 70 years old and would find it extremely difficult to travel from Visakhapatnam to Rajamahendravaram for the trial.
Sri Sai Surya, representing Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the plaintiffs are dominus litus and are entitled to choose their forum and such right of the plaintiffs cannot be take away on the ground of convenience alone. Sri T.M.K. Chaitanya cited the following judgments -
RRR,J 2 Tr.C.M.P.No.360/2018
1. Binji Mahonari v. Kethinedi Venkata Subba Rao1
2. Ramkumar v. Tulara2
3. Thakur Singh v. Thakurain Sheo Ratan Kaur3
4. Saroj Bashini v. Girja Prosad4
5. Firm Kanhaiayalal v. Zumerlal5
6. Basanti Devi v. Mst. Sahodra6
7. G.M. Rajuluv. Govindan Nair7
10. Sadayandi Nadar v. Venugopala10
11. Hyotsna Raje v. Jagpalsingh11
12. Sunderdas v. H.C. Mills12
13. Kumaragurubara Temple v. K.S. Mudaliar13 and
14. Gorrela Veerraju v. Velugubantla Chandrakantham14 However, a perusal of these judgments would show that the essential principle of law is that the plaintiff is entitled to choose his forum and that the convenience of the parties would be a valid ground for transfer. But there is no unanimity in the said judgments. 1 2013 (6) ALT 541 2 AIR 1920 Pat 138 3 AIR 1923 Oudh 30 4 AIR 1926Cal 326 5 AIR 1940 Nag 145 6 AIR 1935 All 979 7 AIR 1938 Mad 745 8 Air 1949 Bom. 263 9 AIR 1953 Orissa 46 10 AIR 1960 Ker 91 11 AIR 1961 Punj 560 12 AIR 1971 Cal 398 13 AIR 1977 Mad 27 14 AIR 1996 AP 34 : 1995 (3) ALT 161 RRR,J 3 Tr.C.M.P.No.360/2018 In the circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners herein are not entitled for transfer of the suit from Rajamahendravaram to Visakhapatnam.
However, Sri Sai Surya has fairly conceded that the evidence of petitioners 1 and 2 can be recorded through an Advocate Commissioner obviating the necessity of petitioners 1 and 2 to travel from Visakhapatnam to Rajamahendravaram.
In these circumstances, the Transfer C.M.P. is dismissed with the observation that as and when petitioners 1 and 2 herein are required to record their evidence, the same can be done through an Advocate Commissioner and for such purpose petitioners 1 and 2 may file applications, which shall be allowed by the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
19th November, 2020 Js RRR,J 4 Tr.C.M.P.No.360/2018 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Tr.C.M.P.No.360 of 2018 19th November, 2020 js