High Court · 2025

l0.Chintala Kamala, Wio Narayana aged 68 years Occu. Household R/o H.No.5- 22, Sri Prasanna Anjaneya Nagar, Devapur, Mandal. Kasipet Dist. Mancherial ...RESPONDENTS Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C., Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw the O.S.No.2 of 2017 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Mancherial and transfer the same to the Court of Senior Civil Judge Court at Adilabad lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section '15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.2 of 2017 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Mancherial pending disposal of the Tr.C.M.P. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRl. T V RAMANA RAO Counsel forthe Respondents 4 & 5 : KOTHAPALLI SAt SRI HARSHA Counsel for the Respondents 6 to 9 : SRI S. SIVARAMAKRISHNA The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETry TRANSFER C.M.P.NO .3040F 2024 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs seeking transfer of O'S No 2- of 2017 from the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Mancherial to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad.

2. Heard Sri T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri K.Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel for respondent Nos'4 & 5 and Sri Siva Rama Krishna learned counsel for respondent Nos'6 to 9'

3. Petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents hereh are the defendants in the suit. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit' In the affidavit, filed in support o[ present Tr'C M'P ' it was 4. averred that plaintiffs filed a suit in O'S'No'2 of 2017 on the file of Senior Civil fudge at Mancherial against the defendants for partition and separate possession in respect of the land admeasuring Acs'7'08 guntas in Sy.No.100 of Indaram village of Mandal Jaipur' Mancherial District (for short, 'suit schedule property'); that the defendant No'1 is father of plaintiffs, defendant Nos'2 and 3 are brothers of plaintiffs; that originally, father of defendant No'1 namely, Verurampally Ramaiah was the absolute owner and Possessor of suit schedule property and after his death, the property was acquired by the joint .t: 2 Tt-CMP.No.3012021 family members and the name of defendant No.1 was recorded as pattadar and possessor in the revenue records; that defendant No.2 in collusion with defendant Nos.1 and 3 got mutated his name in the revenue records and obtained pattadar passbook and title deed from the revenue authorities behind the back of the plaintiff by depriving their legitimate rights; that when dispute arose between one Gurram Malla Goud in respect of the suit schedule property, defenclant No.2 along with family members, instituted a suit in O.S.No.4 of 2005 before the Junior Civil fudge, Chennur, seeking declaration of title along with consequential permanent injunction through the defendant No.4-Advocate and the said suit was decreed in favour of defendant No.2 on 05.08.2013

4.1. It was further averred that defendant No.4 obtained the signatures of defendant No.2 on blank papers and fabricated the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney zride document No.8402/2007 dated 01.10.2007 in respect of the suit schedule property in the name of Kolipaka Tirupathi, who is agent of defendant No.4 and that subsequently, sale deed bearing document No.8041 of 201. of 20245 dated 19.07.2024 was executed in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5, who in turn, sold the same to the defendant 1 / J I,NA. J kCM?.N,.301 2021 Nos.6 to 10; that after having come to know about the said transactiory plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No'2 of 2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Mancherial for partition and separate possession and the same is pending for adjudication; that on

04.03.2024, while the plaintiff No.1 was in the Court premises' defendant No.4, who is Asst.Government Pleader, has filed a false complaint against him and defendant No'2 and the same was registered as Crime No.1,89 /2024 and subsequently, Police filed charge-sheet against them without proper investigation'

4.2. It was further averred ttrat plaintiff No'1 submitted a detailed representation to the District Judge at Mancherial on 06'06 2024 with a request to transfer the case to Adilabad Court' However, plaintiff No.1 received a letter d.ated, 27.07.2024 trom the Registrar General' High Court of Telangana that his request for transfer cannot be entertained on adminiskative side and advised him to ventilate grievance on judicial side; that plaintiff No'1 is apprehending danger in the hands of defendant Nos.4 and 5 and if the suit is not transferred from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial to the Court of Senior Civil Jude at Adilabad, he will be put to irreparable loss and injury 4 TLCMP No.301 2021

5. Learned counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs, while reiterating the avetments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, has further contended that defendant No.4 is being Assistant Government Pleader, influenced the local Police and got registered FIR against the plaintif{ No.1 and the defendant No.2 and, therefore, plaintiffs have reasonable apprehension that they will not get fair proceedings before the trial Court and that defendant No.4 along with defendant No.5, who is also an Advocate, are influencing the court proceedings before the trial Court and thus, prayed to allow the application

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/ defendants would submit that plaintiff No.1 and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the own brothers and defendant No.2 executed an Agreement of Sale-cum- General Power of Attorney aide rcgistered document No.84O2/2007 dated 01.10.2007 in favour of Kolipaka Tirupathi, from whom defendant Nos.4 and 5 have purchased the suit schedule property under registered Sale Deed No.8041 /2074 dated19.07.2014 by paying valuable sale consideration and, therefore, the allegation that defendant No.4 fabricated the Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA by obtaining the signatures of defendant No.2 on blank papers is false and baseless. 5 I,NA.J Tt.CMl' No.tlt 2021

6.1,. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that in fact, defendant No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No'4 of 2005 for injunction against one Gurram Malla Goud and the same was decreed on 05 08'2013 and present suit for partition in O.S.No.2 of 2017 was filed after about 10 years from the date of registration of Agreement of sale-cum-GPA and subsequent Sale Deed dated 79.07.20-1,4, which clearly prove the conduct of the plaintiffs in filing the suit. Learned counsel for respondents pointed out that the allegation of obtaining signatures of defendant No.2 on blank papers are not made by defendant No 2, but the plaintiff No.1, who is not a party to the said document, which clearly shows collusion between the plaintilfs and defendant Nos'1 to 3, who afe none other than the father and brothers of plaintiff No'1' He further submitted that having sold the Property under registered document dated 01.1.0.2007, ptaintiffs and defendant Nos'1 to 3, in collusion, filed the suit making false allegations and also tried to attack the defendant No.4. Therefore, defendant No 4 was conskained to lodge a complaint and the Police registered FIR in Crime No.189 /2024 undet Sections 448, 341, 290, 506 r / w 34IPC and charge-sheet was also filed against the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.2, which clearly shows that the conduct of the plaintiff No'1 and defendant No.2 and finally, contended that the application is 6 T..CMP.No 3012021 fictitious and frivolous and no grounds are made out for transfer of the suit pending before the hial Court and prayed to dismiss the application Perusal of record would disclose that except making allegation that defendant Nos.4 and 5, who are the Assistant Government Pleader and Advocate respectively, influencing the court proceedings and that they influenced the Police and got registered FIR against plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.2, no other reasons or grounds are mentioned by the petitioners in the Transfer Petition. 8 As rightlv pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents herein, suit for partition was filed by the plaintiff No.1, who is none other than own brother of defendant No.2, who executed the Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA in the year 2007, on the allegation that defendant No.4 obtained signatures of defendant No.2 on the blank papers and got registered an Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA in favour of one Kolipaka Tirupathi. It is interesting to note that defendant No.2, whose signature was allegedly obtained by fraud by defendant No.4, has neither filed any case against defendant No.4 nor taken any step for cancellation of the Agreement oI Sale-cum-GPA dated

01.10.2007. Further, petitioners herein failed to point out specific instances as to how defendant Nos.4 and 5 are influencing the court 7 I,NA, J 1..CM|'-N 012021 proceedings before the hial Court and except saying that they are apprehending danger in the hands of the defendant Nos.4 and 5, petitioners herein failed to show valid reasons, grounds for transfer of suit.

9. lt is settled principles of law that a party seeking transfer of a case has to make out a strong case on the basis of valid, cogent reasons for transfer and a request for hansfer of case cannot be entertained on vague, uncorroborated allegations. Transfer of case from one Court to another Court has a serious consequence and has to be entertained only where a strong case is made out for such transfer

10. In considered opinion of this Court, dre grounds on which present application is filed are vague and petitioners herein failed to make out case for transfer of suit from the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Mancherial to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad

17. Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed Sd/- T. JAYASREE DEPUW REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY//

6.0- SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial' 2. OneCC to SRl. T V RAMANA RAO Advocate IOPUC] I I l ) ,.: \ I I

3. One CC to SRl. S. SIVARAMAKRISHNA, 4 One cc to SRl. KOTHAPALLY SAI SRt HARSHA, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies (h- I ,:j I ( { -z//, tlu<' /'-:- lr t) t.t lnE 3r4r6 ).' 18 Il]B il6 ({ \ I HIGH COURT DATED:1110612025 t \ ORDER TRCMP.No.304 of 2024 DISMTSSING THE TR.CMP ?* 11 $ v)