APHC010022512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 21/2025 Between: M/s Sri Venkateswara Salt Cottors ...PETITIONER AND Peruri Manikyamba @ Mani and another ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. JAMI MADHAVI The Court made the following: Order: This transfer civil miscellaneous petition is filed under Section 24 of C.P.C., seeking to withdraw Appeal Suit No.10 of 2020 on the file of VI Additional District Judge’s Court, Kakinada, East Godavari District and transfer the same to this Court to be tried along with Second Appeal Nos.233 and 234 of 2016 pending before this Court. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: (a) It is pleaded that the present transfer petition is filed seeking withdrawal of A.S.No.10 of 2020 on the file of VI Additional District Judge’s Court, Kakinada and transfer the same to this Court to be tried along with S.A.Nos.233 and 234 of 2016 as the subject matter and the issues involved in both the appeals is one and the same and to avoid conflicting findings, if any, in the interest of justice. (b) It is further pleaded that the petitioner’s grandfather late Mallavarapu Satyanarayana was the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.70-00 covered by new Survey No.965/1 (Old T.S.No.1965/5 & 6) situated in Kakinada Town. He was the sole Proprietor and Manager of the petitioner firm M/s. Sri Venkateswara Salt Cottors and he was producing salt from the land by obtaining licence in the name of the petitioner. (c) It is further pleaded that on 14-12-1957, the petitioner’s grandfather Satyanarayana had executed a registered settlement deed establishing sole proprietary firm in the name and style of M/s. Sri Venkateswara Salt Cottors and that he is a proprietor and sole Manager of the firm during his lifetime; that as per his last Will deed dated 26-6-1973, the petitioner is the sole Manager and Proprietor of the petitioner firm; that under the said settlement deed, his grandfather had not settled landed property to an extent of Ac.16-00 in favour of male persons and Ac.3-00 in favour of female persons and what was given is only profits as per the ratio mentioned in the said document; that when the respondents are trying to encroach the suit schedule land from west to east to an extent of Ac.10-00 out of Ac.70-00 of land, the petitioner lodged a complaint vide FIR No.114/2013 against the respondents and that the respondents openly proclaimed that they will trespass into the suit schedule property, hence he filed O.S.No.711 of 2014 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada, against the respondents herein seeking permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The respondents contested the said suit by filing their written statement. On an erroneous view of fact and law, the trial Court dismissed the suit on 20-12-2019. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed A.S.No.10 of 2020 on the file of VI Additional District Judge’s Court, Kakinada and the said appeal is pending for hearing. (d) It is further pleaded that one Gamini Krishna Rao and three others, who are legal heirs of Gamini Bhramaramba, also filed a suit in O.S.No.957 of 1989 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada, for rendition of accounts of the petitioner firm claiming Ac.3-00 of land out of Ac.70-00 under a registered settlement deed, dated 14-12-1957. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree in the said suit, which was confirmed in the first appeal and as against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, two second appeals S.A.Nos.233 and 234 of 2016 were filed before this Court, which are pending for consideration. (e) It is further pleaded that the subject matter of A.S.No.10 of 2020 arising out of O.S.No.711/2012 and the subject matter of S.A.Nos.233 and 234 of 2016 raised out of O.S.No.957/1989 is one and the same and the issue relating to the interpretation and legal effect of recitals of the settlement deed is common. Any finding/observation on the recitals and interpretation on the settlement deed will have direct bearing on the result of both the appeals and it may lead to conflicting views. Hence, it is necessary in the interest of justice that A.S.No.10 of 2020 be withdrawn from the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada and transferred the same to this Court to be tried along with S.A.Nos.233 and 234 of 2016 pending before this Court, else he will suffer irreparable loss and prejudice. Therefore, it is prayed to withdraw A.S.No.10 of 2020 on the file of VI Additional District Judge’s Court, Kakinada and transfer the same to this Court to be tried along with S.A.Nos.233 and 234 of 2016 pending before this Court. 3. The case of the respondents, in brief, is as follows: (a) It is contended that the petitioner has filed the present transfer petition seeking transfer of A.S.No.10 of 2020 pending before the VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada, with an ulterior motive to delay the proceedings and to obstruct the layout process of the subject land before the Special Officer, Director of Town Planning, Kakinada District. (b) It is further contended that this Court in W.P.No.17477 of 2023 vide order dated 26-3-2024 has already directed expeditious disposal of A.S.No.10 of 2020 along with O.S.No.54 of 2014 within a stipulated period of three months. The disputes in the aforesaid second appeals are entirely distinct and bear no connection to the first appeal in A.S.No.10 of 2020 pending before the VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada. (c) It is further contended that the petitioner is attempting to mislead this Court by wrongly asserting that Sri Venkateswara Salt Kotters is a sole proprietorship, whereas it was a partnership firm that ceased to exist due to the operation of law, as determined in O.S.No.957 of 1989. The concurrent findings in the previous litigation are binding and cannot be re-agitated in A.S.No.10 of 2020. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the transfer petition. 4. Heard Sri P. Raja Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y. Sree Ramulu, learned counsel, representing Ms. Jami Madhavi, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The grounds urged by the petitioner for seeking transfer of A.S.No.10 of 2020 on the file of VI Additional District Judge’s Court, Kakinada (connected with O.S.No.711 of 2014 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada), to be tried along with S.A.Nos.233 and 234 of 2016 on the file of this Court (connected with O.S.No.957 of 1989 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada), are that the issue involved in respect of the settlement deed said to have been executed by the petitioner’s grandfather, by name Mallavarapu Satyanarayana, is one and the same. 6. The suit in O.S.No.711 of 2014 is filed by the petitioner against the respondents herein for seeking the relief of prohibitory injunction in respect of the suit schedule property and both the parties contested the suit proceedings and the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit on merits, against which the petitioner herein filed first appeal which is pending before the VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada, vide A.S.No.10 of 2020 and the said first appeal is pending for hearing. 7. It was contended by the learned counsel for respondents that hearing in the first appeal A.S.No.10 of 2020 has been commenced by the first appellate Court in the first appeal proceedings. The suit in O.S.No.957 of 1989 is filed on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada, for seeking the relief of rendition of accounts of the petitioner firm claiming Ac.3-00 out of land of Ac.70-00 of land under the registered settlement deed, dated 14-12-1957 and in the said suit, the trial Court passed a preliminary decree, which was confirmed by the first appellate Court, against which both the second appeals in S.A.Nos.233 and 234 of 2016 are pending before this Court. 8. As seen from the material on record, the respondents herein are not parties to the suit O.S.No.957 of 1989, against which two second appeals are pending before this Court. The suit for rendition of accounts of the petitioner firm was instituted in the year 1989 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, whereas the suit in O.S.No.711 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner against the respondents for seeking the relief of prohibitory injunction in the year 2014 and after conclusion of trial, on merits, the said suit was dismissed, against which the petitioner filed A.S.No.10 of 2020, which is pending before VI Additional District Judge’s Court, Kakinada. The respondents herein are not parties to the suit in O.S.No.957 of 1989, against which the second appeals in S.A.Nos.233 and 234 of 2016 are filed. 9. The second appeals have to be decided under Section 100 of C.P.C. Moreover, against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, the second appeals in S.A.Nos.233 and 234 of 2016 have been filed and pending before this Court. The first appeal has to be decided which is like a suit proceeding. As stated supra, the respondents herein are not parties to the suit proceedings in O.S.No.957 of 1989, against which S.A.Nos.233 and 234 of 2016 are filed and the same are pending before this Court. 10. The law is well settled that necessity or occasion to transfer a suit from one Court to another Court would arise, if only there exists any similarity of cause of action or commonality of parties. Such a situation does not exist in the present case. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable grounds to consider the request of the petitioner. 11. In the result, the transfer civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J