IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.3585 of 2008. Date:09.11.2009. Between:- B.Suresh Kumar ..Revision Petitioner herein/Petitioner in Tr.O.P. And V.Subrahmanyam and others. .. Respondents/Respondent in Tr.O.P. ORDER:- This Revision has been directed against the order dated 30.11.2007 passed in Transfer O.P.No.85 of 2007 on the file of the District Judge, Chittoor whereby and whereunder the learned District Judge dismissed the petition filed under Section 24 C.P.C. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 28.08.2008. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 entered appearance through their counsel. The other respondents remained exparte in the Transfer O.P. Therefore, notice in this C.R.P. may not be of much use. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the subject matter in O.S.No.85 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam and the subject matter in O.S.No.87 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor are one and the same and therefore, they are required to be tried together to avoid conflicting Judgments in respect of the same property. A further submission has been made that the contesting respondents did not plead in the counter filed, opposing transfer application, that the properties involved in both the suits are different and therefore, the finding recorded by the District Judge, Chittoor that the properties involved in the two suits are different, is not based upon any material. The learned counsel took me to the counter filed by respondent No.4 opposing the transfer petition filed before the District Judge, Chittoor. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that in the suit filed by respondent No.4 in O.S.No.85 of 2003, the petitioner is not a party to the said proceedings and therefore, his presence is not required for disposal of O.S.No.85 of 2003. Indisputably, O.S.No.85 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam is filed by respondent No.4 against V.Chinnamma and B.Ranganatham (respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein) for declaration of title and injunction in respect of survey No.227/3-A admeasuring Ac.2.77cents. The plaintiff herein claims that he purchased the property under a sale deed dated 09.02.1966 from Gangamma. He filed O.S.No.87 of 2007 for declaration of title and for partition of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is said to be land bearing Survey No.227/3-A admeasuring Ac.2.75cs. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.85 of 2003 is very simple that he purchased the property from Gangamma and that defendants therein have no right and title over it. The scope of the suit O.S.No.85 of 2003 is with regard to validity of the sale deed executed by Gangamma whereas the scope of O.S.No.87 of 2007 involves multiplicity of questions, such as, to whom the property belongs and how many shares are there etc. In that view of the matter, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the application. I do not see any flaw in the order impugned in the Revision. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 9th November, 2009 AMD