PUSHPAKUMARI W/O GOPALAKRISHNAPILLAI Vs. MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein filed O.P.(T.P.) No.1 of 2011 before the Court of the District Judge, Kollam to transfer O.S.No.198 of 2010 pending before the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kollam to the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kollam where O.S.No.274 of 2010 is pending. THE learned District Judge dismissed the application, which is under challenge in this Original Petition.

(2.) O.S.No.198 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner (Pushpakumari) against Muraleedharan Pillai, Prasannakumar, Satheesh Chandran and Rema Devi for partition of the plaint 'C' schedule property, for fixation of its northern boundary, for recovery of possession of its northern portion and for injunction. O.S.No.274 of 2010 was filed by Satheesh Chandran, the third defendant in O.S.No.198 of 2010, before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kollam against Prasannakumar, Muraleedharan Pillai, Pushpakumari and Rema Devi. O.S.No.274 of 2010 is a suit for declaration of title of the plaint 'E' schedule property and for recovery of possession. It is stated that plaint 'E' schedule property in O.S.No.274 of 2010 is a portion of the pathway lying in between the plaint 'A' and 'C' schedule properties in O.S.No.198 of 2010. The parties to both the suits are the same. It is also stated that the property sought to be partitioned in O.S.No.198 of 2010 is also a subject matter in O.S.No.274 of 2010, since the pathway claimed is through that property. The dispute between the parties is essentially the same in both the suits. They are brothers and sisters. The evidence to be adduced in both the cases may be common. If one suit is decided in a particular manner, the decision in that suit will have great impact on the decision on the other. If both the suits are tried by different courts, it is likely that conflicting decisions may occur. To suit the general convenience of the parties as well, it would be ideal if both the suits are tried by the same Court. The documents also may be common. If some documents are produced in one case, the parties may find it difficult to produce the same in the other. If both the suits are tried by the same Court, considerably judicial time also can be saved. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that it would be not only just and proper, but it would be ideal if both the suits are tried by the same Court. Therefore, the prayer for transfer is liable to be allowed.