7. The petitioner has filed Tr.OP.No.40 of 2022 against the respondents herein to transfer OS.No.3161 of 2019 pending on the file of learned VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to learned VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to be tried along with OS No.288 of 2022.

8.1 It is stated in Tr.OP.No.40 of 2022 that petitioner-plaintiff has filed OS.No.288 of 2022 to declare her as the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and for perpetual injunction restraining respondents-defendants from interfering in her peaceful possession and enjoyment and also to declare the document No.801 of 2019, dated 18.02.2019 as null and void. It is further stated in the Tr.OP. that respondent No.1 herein has filed suit in OS.No.3161 of 2019 against the petitioner herein/defendant No.1 therein and her son (D.Satya Narayana)/defendant No.2 for declaration to declare the document No.407 of 2014 dated 06.02.2014 as null and void and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein not to change the nature of suit schedule property.

8.2 Respondent No.1 herein field counter in the Tr.OP., contending that the contentions raised by the parties are different and suit in O.S.No.3161 of 2019 cannot be transferred.

9. Learned trial Court has dismissed Tr.OP.No.40 of 2022 on the premise that petitioner herein has approached the Court with unclean hands by filing connected Tr.OP.s., with false averments.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Tr.OPs. contended that the suit schedule properties in O.S.No.103 of 2019 and in O.S.No.3161 of 2019 are one and the same with that of suit schedule property in O.S.No.288 of 2022. Learned counsel also contended that the petitioner herein has also filed a suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.164 of 2019 restraining the respondent No.1 herein from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same suit schedule property.

11. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an undertaking signed by the deponent (petitioner) stating that the petitioner is taking steps to withdraw O.S.No.164 of 2019, pending before the learned VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad without claiming any equities.

The said undertaking is taken on record.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that suit in O.S.No.164 of 2019 is coming up for arguments. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner which is signed by the counsel, the said point does not require any further discussions.

13. Insofar as suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.288 of 2022 is concerned, she has filed the suit to declare as the owner of the plaint schedule property and also for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering in her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and also to declare the document No.801 of 2019 dated 18.02.2019 as null and void executed by defendant No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 (respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein).

14. It is apt to mention here that respondent No.1 has also filed suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.103 of 2019 against the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, for perpetual injunction in respect of the same schedule property shown in O.S.No.288 of 2022.

15. While things stood thus, respondent No.1 has filed another suit in O.S.No.3161 of 2019 against the petitioner herein and her son by name D.Satya Narayana for declaration to declare the document No.407 of 2014 dated 06.02.2014 executed by defendant No.1 (petitioner herein) in favour of defendant No.2 therein (D.Satya Narayana) as null and void and for perpetual injunction not to change the physical features of the suit schedule property.

16. The suit in O.S.No.288 of 2022 is coming up for cross examination of PW-1 and suit in O.S.No.103 of 2019 is coming up for final arguments.

17. As the schedule property in O.S.No.288 of 2022 is the same with that of O.S.No.103 of 2