- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CIVIL PETITION No.309/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O LATE P. RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 2. KUM. SNEHA D/O LATE P. RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 3 . KUM. VARSHA, D/O LATE P. RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, (PETITIONER NO.1 BEING THE MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF PETITIONER NO.3) ALL ARE R/AT HOUSE NO.22, 3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS, SUDDAGUNTE PALYA, NEAR DHARMARAM COLLEGE, BALAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU-560029. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI VEERESHA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. P. MALA W/O SHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O AGGUNDA, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573103. - 2 - 2. SMT. ASHA, W/O PANDURANGA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O NO.2, N CROSS, NEW GURAPPANA PALYA, RADHAKRISHNA BUILDING, BENGALURU-560029. 3. SMT. MANJULA, W/O VENKATESH MUDIYAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O CMC SHOP NO.2, J.N. ROAD, DANDELI, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT-581325. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, AMBIKANAGAR, HALIYAL TALUK, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT-581363. 5. THE POST MASTER, AMBIKANAGAR BRANCH, HALIYAL TALUK, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT-582363. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUNIL KUMAR H., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; R-4 & R-5 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER TRANSFERRING O.S.NO.7/2023 WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HALIYAL, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT TO HON’BLE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-40) WHERE O.S.NO.4859/2023 IS PENDING. THIS CIVIL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25/09/2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - CAV ORDER The present petition is filed seeking transfer of O.S. No. 7/2023, pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Haliyal, Uttarkannada District, to the Court of the XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, where O.S. No.4859/2023 instituted by the petitioners is already pending adjudication. 2. Suits are between the same parties and arise out of the death of Shantamma (wife of Parappa), who died on 15.03.2023. Shantamma was the mother of respondent Nos.1 to 3, and late P. Ramesh, who in turn was the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The respondents, as plaintiffs, have filed O.S. No.7/2023 at Haliyal seeking declaration of their status as class-I heirs and injunction against Canara Bank and the Post Office at Ambikanagar. The very same plaintiffs have also instituted O.S. No.4859/2023 at Bengaluru for partition and separate possession of Shantamma’s immovable properties, wherein reference is also made to the disputed deposits. As both - 4 - proceedings concern the estate of Shantamma and involve overlapping issues, the transfer is sought to avoid conflicting judgment and ensure complete adjudication. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the procedural perspective, consolidation and simultaneous trial of both suits before the same Court would ensure consistency in findings, avoid duplication of evidence, reduce costs and expedite disposal. It is submitted that the law empowers this Court to transfer suit to prevent conflicting judgment and to serve the ends of justice and the present case is a classic example warranting exercise of such jurisdiction. The petitioners are permanent residents of Bengaluru. Petitioner No.1 is a widowed lady who manages a small grocery shop to support her family; petitioner No.2 assists her in this business, while petitioner No.3 is a minor school-going child dependent upon her mother. Repeated - 5 - travel to Haliyal, which is more than 450 kilometers away from Bengaluru, imposes an unreasonable financial burden, consumes significant time, and causes great hardship to the petitioners. Even respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not residents of Haliyal, respondent No.2 resides in Bengaluru and respondent No.3 is a resident of Dandeli. Thus, Bengaluru is more convenient forum for all the parties. Furthermore, the principal immovable assets in disputes are situated within Bengaluru city, where parties will necessarily adduce evidence relating to valuation, title and possession. In these circumstances, the balance of convenience, the need to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and the principle of judicial economy, all demand that O.S. No.7/2023 be transferred to Bengaluru to be tried along with O.S. No.4859/2023. Such transfer would not prejudice the respondents but would substantially advance the cause of justice and ensure comprehensive adjudication of all disputes inter se the said parties. - 6 - 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that great difficulty and inconvenience would be caused to the plaintiffs if O.S. No.7/2023 is transferred from Haliyal to Bengaluru. It is urged that such transfer would inevitably result in delay and gross injustice to the plaintiffs. It is further pointed out that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has already been filed by the petitioners in O.S. No.7/2023 and that the proceedings therein have progressed substantially with evidence having already commenced. At this stage, disturbing the forum would cause avoidable disruption and prejudice. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and Others1 (Kulwinder Kaur), wherein it is held that considerations such as balance of convenience or inconvenience are merely illustrative in nature and not exhaustive, and that for exercise of power of transfer something more compelling, more substantial, and of greater 1 (2008) 3 SCC 659 - 7 - significance from the standpoint of public justice is required. It is therefore contended that, in the absence of such compelling circumstances, the present petition for transfer is liable to be rejected. 6. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the petitioners have made out sufficient ground for exercise of power under Section 24 CPC to transfer O.S. No.7/2023, pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Haliyal, to the Court of XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, where O.S. No.4859/2023, between the same parties is pending adjudication?” 7. On careful consideration of the rival contentions, this Court finds merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Both O.S. No.7/2023 and O.S. No.4859/2023 arise on death of Shantamma and relate to succession and inheritance disputes amongst the same sets of Class-I heirs. The subject matter of both suits overlap, as even in Bengaluru suit reference is made to the very same - 8 - bank deposit and postal savings that are in Court dispute in Haliyal suit. Consolidation of proceedings before a single Court is therefore imperative to avoid inconsistent findings, duplication of evidence and multiplicity of proceedings. The petitioners, being permanent residents of Bengaluru, including petitioner No.1, who is a widowed lady, supporting her family through a small business, would face undue hardship if she compelled to travel over 450 kilometers to contest the proceedings at Haliyal. Significantly, even respondent No.2 resides in Bengaluru and plaintiffs themselves have initiated O.S.No.4859/2023 before the Court at Bengaluru, thereby, making Bengaluru a more convenient and neutral forum for all the parties. The major immovable properties in dispute are also located in Bengaluru, therefore, reinforcing the appropriateness of that forum. 8. Though the respondents contend that evidence have commenced at Haliyal and rely on Kulwinder Kaur’s case to argue that the transfer requires compelling - 9 - circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the very existence of parallel suits between the same parties concerning the same estate constitute such compelling circumstance. The risk of conflicting decrees is real and substantial, which would undermine the cause of justice. In Kulwinder Kaur’s case stated supra, the Apex Court has held at paragraph Nos.22, 23 and 24 as under: “22. Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a straitjacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. 23. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or the defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the - 10 - court in which the suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; “interest of justice” demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above are some of the instances which are germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as exhaustive. If on the above or other relevant considerations, the court feels that the plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to have a “fair trial” in the court from which he seeks to transfer a case, it is not only the power, but the duty of the court to make such order. 24. In Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani this Court stated: (SCC p. 169, para 2) “2. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of - 11 - transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case.” 9. The Apex Court held that consideration like balance of convenience or inconvenience are only illustrative and not exhaustive and emphasized that the transfer of proceedings should not be ordered lightly, but where circumstances are compelling, substantial and imperative from the standpoint of public justice, the power under Section 24 CPC can and must be exercised to serve the ends of justice. 10. Applying the above principle, the present case discloses compelling circumstances warranting transfer. The balance of convenience, the avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings, and the need of comprehensive adjudication, all justify allowing the petition. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and the petition deserves to be allowed. This Court Pass the following: - 12 - ORDER i. The civil petition is allowed. ii. O.S. No.7/2023 is withdrawn from the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Haliyal, Uttar Kannada District and transferred to the XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, to be tried along with O.S. No.4859/2023. iii. The registry of Haliyal Court is directed to remit the records forthwith. iv. Parties to appear before the XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on 18.10.2025 without waiting for further notice. Sd/- ________________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM