THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.3938 of 2010 Date : 3-9-2010 Between : K.G.V. Krishnaiah s/o.late Gonguntla Venkataiah .. Petitioner and Gonuguntla Narayanappa S/o.late Gonuguntla Venkataiah and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu Counsel for respondents : The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.3938 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 29-7- 2010 in Tr.O.P.No.40/2009, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Kurnool. I have heard Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record. Petitioner filed three suits, namely, O.S.No.312/2008 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, O.S.No.322/2008 and O.S.No.332/2008 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone. While the first mentioned suit was filed for declaration of title and cancellation of sale deed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2, the latter two suits were filed for permanent injunction pertaining to Ac.2-77 cents, situated in Amakathadu village and Ac.3- 05 cents, situated in Togarchedu village, respectively. The main ground on which the application for transfer of the two suits i.e., O.S.No.322/2008 and O.S.No.332/2008 to the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, to be tried along with O.S.No.312/2008, was filed was that the document pertaining to family settlement on the basis of which the petitioner has claimed the reliefs in the suits, is common and that therefore there is a likelihood of conflicting decisions being rendered by different Courts. The learned District Judge, having considered this plea, gave a finding that while O.S.No.312/2008 was filed for declaration of title and cancellation of the sale deed, the other two suits were filed for injunction simplicitor and that the documents on which the petitioner has placed reference are not common. The learned District Judge also held that the properties covered by the three suits are different and distinct, situated in different jurisdictions and that there was no commonality between the three cases for being tried together. The learned Senior Counsel has laid emphasis on the fact that as the family settlement is common in all the three suits, the learned District Judge committed an error in finding that the documents are not common. In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff requires to establish his title, while in a suit for permanent injunction simplicitor, the plaintiff, in order to succeed, has to establish his possession. However, in appropriate cases, the Courts may go into the issue of title incidentally in a suit for permanent injunction simplicitor. As noted above, O.S.No.312/2008 was filed for declaration of title and cancellation of sale deed, while the other two suits were only filed for injunction simplicitor. In my opinion, there is no likelihood of any conflict in the Judgments of the Courts below if they are tried separately as the scope of the suits is distinct from each other apart from the fact that the subject matter of the suits i.e., properties, are different and the documents required to be produced by the petitioner in the injunction suits vary with the documents to be filed in O.S.No.312/2008. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order passed by the Court below in declining to transfer the above mentioned two suits to the Court of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 3-9-2010 AM