SOORAYYA CBETTY Vs. DAIARADHA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is K. V. Sooraya chetty. He has prayed in this petition for transfer of O. S. No. 61/1964 from the file of the District Munsiff's Court Chitoor to that of the Sub-Court, Chitoor for disposal jointly along with O.S. No' 51 of 1954 and O. S. No. 1/1957. There are three respondents in this case. Of these, the third respondent, Bhaskara Naidu, remained ex-parte. The first respondent, Dasaratha Naidu and the second respondent, Rajabadar Naidu are represented by Advocates and they opposed this petition. The relevant facts are aa follows.

(2.) Dasaratha Naidu (the first respondent) originally owned a saw mill. He subsequently sold it to Soorayya Chetty (the petitioner). The latter, in turn, sold to Rajabadar Naidu (the second respondent). Later on, this Rajabadar Naidu sold it to Soorayya Chetty (the petitioner) under an agreement. Part of the sale consideration payable by Soorayya Chetty to Rajabadar Naidu for this particular sale consisted of a mortgage which was executed by Soorayya Chetty in favour of Rajabadar Naidu. Soorayya Chetty later sold the same saw mill to Bhaskara Naidu (the third respondent). Thus, this saw mill changed hands five times among the petitioner and the three respondents. In connection with the saw mill, all of them were entangled in litigation. The petitioner as plaintiff filed O. S No, 51 of 1954 in the Sub Court, Chittoor against Dasaratha Naidu (the first defendant) and another person namely, Venkatramanaiah Chetty, who was tather-in-law of the petitioner (the latter subsequently died and his legal representatives were impleaded in the suit) for declaration of title and possession of the saw mill and some other properties. This suit was filed by him after the petitioner had purchased it from Rajabadar Naidu (the second respondent) and even after the sale to Bhaskara Naidu (the third respondent), After the petitioner had sold the property to Raja Bahadur Naidu and before he re-purchased it from Raja Bahadur Naidu, the petitioner filed O. S. No. 206 of 1951 against Raja Bahadur Naidu as sole defendant but that suit was compromised and afterwards the petitioner re-purchased the saw mill from Raja Bahadur Naidu and executed the mortgage as already mentioned by me. Baskara Naidu (the third respondent), after his purchase from the petitioner also filed O. S. No. 1 of 1957 in the Sub-Court, Chittoor for relief of declarati on of title and for compensation and damages. He impleaded in that suit Dasaratha Naidu (the first respondent) as the first defendant, Raja Bahadur Naidu (the second respondent) as the second defendant and the petitioner herein as the third defendant, He also impleaded another person Venkatramaniah Chetty as the fourth defendant. Both these suits were contested. Ultimately, the parties in both the suits filed a joint memo, dated 18-12-1959 signed by all parties and the Advocates agreeing that those two suits may be tried together. The petitioner filed O. P. No. 48 of 1964 before the learned District Judge, Chittoor under Sec. 24 C P C praying for the same relief as he has asked for in the present petition. The learned District Judge dismissed that petition, Subsequently, the petitioner filed the present petition in this Court praying for transfer.

(3.) Shri R. Venugopala Reddy, the learned Advocate for the second respondent, raised a preliminary objection that this petition under Sec. 24 C P C does not lie. He contends that, as the petitioner had already filed a petition under Sec. 24 C P C. before the learned District Judge and as the latter has pasted an order dismissing that petition, the only proper course for the petitioner is to seek for a revision of the order of the learned District Judge. Section 24 C P C. runs as follows: