IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 Tr.P(C).No. 265 of 2008() ------------------------- OS.232/2002 of Ist ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER (S): IST DEFENDANT --------------------------------- R. PREMAKUMARI, W/O.K.C. CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, DEVI KRIPA, KUTTIVILAKAM LANE, AMBALAMUKKU, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 2 AND 3 ----------------------------------------------- 1. M.K. DEVARAJ, S/O. M. KUNJAN, T.C 5/1883 (1) SITHARA, VRINDAVAN LANE, AMBALAMMUKKU, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RADHAMMA PILLAI, D/O. BHAVANI PILLAI, KAVIL PUTHEN VEEDU, CHERUSSERI BHAGAM, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. B. PRADEEPKUMAR, S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, KAVIL PUTHEN VEEDU, CHERUSSERI BHAGAM, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT C/16, CHERAN NAGAR, G.N. MILLS POST, COIMBATORE-34. ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C).No.265 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009 ORDER The first defendant in O.S.No.232 of 2002, on the file of the Ist Additional Sub Court, Kollam, has filed this Transfer Petition seeking transfer of the suit to Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The suit is filed by the first respondent for specific performance of the 1/3rd right of the first defendant in the plaint schedule property and for partition and alternatively for return of the advance paid. The case of the plaintiff is that an agreement for sale was executed between the plaintiff and the first defendant in respect of the 1/3rd right of the first defendant in the property. The first defendant denied the transaction. The second defendant is the mother of the first defendant. The third defendant is the brother of the first defendant. 3. The ground on which the petitioner/first defendant seeks transfer is that even according to the plaintiff, the agreement was entered into at Thiruvananthapuram and that the first respondent is working at Thiruvananthapuram. It is not in TPC No.265/2009 2 dispute that the second defendant mother is residing at Kollam. The counsel for the petitioner states that the third defendant, who is brother of the first defendant, is working at Coimbatore. 4. The only ground on which the transfer is sought, is to suit the convenience of the petitioner. The subject matter of the suit is situated within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Kollam. The mother of the defendants 1 and 3 is also residing at Kollam. The convenience of the first defendant/petitioner alone cannot be taken into account for transfer of the case to Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. There is no dispute that the Sub Court, Kollam has jurisdiction to try the suit. Evidently, under Section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit has to be instituted in the court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit, that is, the immovable property. I do not think that the petitioner has made out sufficient reasons to transfer the case. The Transfer Petition is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl