##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:34587 APHC010098482026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3397]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA

KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 58/2026

Between:

Smt.parvataneni Prameela Rani ...PETITIONER AND

Sava Sudhakar and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. P RAJASEKHAR The Court made the following:

2026:APHC:34587

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.58 of 2026

ORDER:

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 24 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw O.S.No.574 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and transfer the

same to the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

I. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.121 of 2025, on the file of the VII

Additional District Court, Vijayawada seeking partition of the suit schedule property, which was succeeded by the petitioner from his father Late Sava Gopal Rao. The petitioner pleaded that his father died intestate on 01.07.1990 and after service of notice in the aforesaid suit, the respondent No.2 herein filed the written statement admitting the said suit claim. The petitioner further pleaded that pending the suit for partition, the respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.574 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, seeking to cancel the settlement deed No.947 of 1992 dated 20.06.1992, before the Sub- Registrar, Bhimadole, which was said to have been executed in favour of the petitioner by his mother by name S. Kusuma Anjani Devi. The petitioner further pleaded that the claim in both the suits is with regard

2026:APHC:34587 to the suit properties belonging to the petitioner’s father and the issues

and evidence to be recorded in both the suits will also be the same.

II. The petitioner pleaded that if the two suits are not heard together, there

is likelihood of conflicting judgments on the same issues involved. The petitioner pleaded that he is aged about 69 years and is not in a position to travel between Tadepalligudem and Vijayawada and the respondent No.1 mischievously filed the suit without cause of action and also to cause hardship to the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the suit in O.S.No.574 of 2025, is transferred from Tadepalligudem to Vijayawada, and heard along with O.S.No.121 of 2025, on the file of the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada. The petitioner pleaded that the suit in O.S.No.574 of 2025 was filed for seeking cancellation of the registered settlement deed dated 20.06.1992 and the parties in both the suits belong to the

same family.

III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the pleadings,

issues involved in both the suits are common and identical and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments and also to secure the ends of justice, the petitioner is constrained to file the present transfer petition seeking to transfer O.S.No.574 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and transfer the same to the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada, to try along

with O.S.No.121 of 2025, which is pending before the said Court.

2026:APHC:34587

3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit by denying the material averments made in the affidavit of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that there are no grounds to allow the present transfer civil miscellaneous petition and requested to dismiss the transfer civil

miscellaneous petition.

4. Heard Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel respondents. Perused the material

available on record.