Mere fact that the parties in both the suits are one and same and the subject matter of the property in both the suits is covered under the agreement of sale, dated 09.02.2017, is not sufficient to transfer the suit in O.S.No.93 of 2020 to the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada, to be tried along with O.S.No.31 of 2020, as the scope of two suits are totally different and the crucial documents pleaded by the parties are not in dispute.

JUDGMENT

A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S.No.93 of 2020, on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, with a prayer to transfer the same to the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada, for trial and disposal along with O.S.No.31 of 2020.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he filed O.S.No.31 of 2020 before the VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 09.02.2017 against the respondent. It is relating to house Plot Nos.20, 21, 22 and 23. In fact, the agreement of sale as above is covering house Plot Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 20, 21, 22, 23, 32, 32A and 34. But the suit is filed only for Plot Nos.20, 21, 22 and 23. The respondent filed O.S.No.93 of 2020, on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, claiming that the defendant therein, Reddy Rama Pallam Raju (petitioner herein), is her GPA Holder and in the capacity of the GPA Holder, he sold the property pertaining to Plot Nos.4 and 6 to himself (to defendant himself) vide Registered Sale Deed, dated 04.03.2020, for consideration of Rs.19,40,000/-. The respondent herein filed the said suit alleging that consideration of Rs.19,40,000/-was not paid to her by the defendant therein, who is the petitioner herein. So, she filed O.S.No.93 of 2020 for recovery of the amount. The parties in both the suits are one and same. The subject matter of the property in both the suits is covered under the agreement of sale, dated 09.02.2017. So, it would be appropriate to try both the suits by one Court to avoid any conflicting judgments. The petitioner filed T.O.P.No.73 of 2022 before Principal District Judge, Rajmahendravaram, for the said relief, but it was dismissed erroneously. Hence, the petition.

3. The respondent did not appear in spite of service of notice.

4. Now, in deciding the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, the point that arises for consideration is whether the suit in O.S.No.93 of 2020, pending on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakainada, is liable to be transferred to the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada, to be tried along with O.S.No.31 of 2020, as prayed for?

Point: -

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend according to the averments in the petition.

6. As seen from the copy of plaint in O.S.No.31 of 2020 filed by the petitioner herein in the capacity of plaintiff, he filed the same for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 09.02.2017 and it is pertaining to Plot Nos.20, 21, 22 and 23. The respondent herein is no other than the defendant therein.

7. As seen from the copy of plaint in O.S.No.93 of 2020, the plaintiff therein is no other than the respondent herein and the present petitioner is shown as defendant in the said suit. So, the respondent herein filed the said suit in O.S.No.93 of 2020 alleging in substance that the defendant therein in the capacity of the GPA Holder, sold the property covered under plot Nos.4 and 6 to himself and though the consideration of Rs.19,40,000/- was mentioned, but, in fact, the plaintiff therein did not receive the consideration, as such, she filed suit for recovery of the amount covered on the sale deed.

8. As seen from the copy of plaint in O.S.No.31 of 2020, the present petitioner pleaded the purported agreement, dated 12.02.2014 entered into by the owners to develop the property. So, the petitioner further pleaded that the defendant along with others entered into agreement of sale, dated 09.02.2017 in respect of the subject matter of the property and other plots. So, the contention of the plaintiff in O.S.No.31 of 2020 is mainly based upon the agreement of sale, dated 09.02.2017 and earlier to that the owners entered into development agreement, dated 12.02.2014. The respondent herein, as defendant, filed a written statement in the said suit and a look at a copy of the written statement goes to reveal that the r