HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 3469 OF 2010 Friday, the Thirteenth Twenty of August, Two Thousand and Ten Between Mrs. CM Damayanthi and others Petitioners AND C.M. Prahalad and others Respondents ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 26.03.2010 passed in Transfer O.P. No. 2584 of 2008 whereby OS No. 91 of 2007 was withdrawn from the file of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and transferred to the Family Court, Secunderabad, to be tried along with OP No. 183 of 2008. The petitioners herein filed OS No. 91 of 2007 on the file of the III Senior Civil Judge for partition against the respondents. They also filed OP No. 183 of 2008 before the Family court, Secunderabad, seeking maintenance from out of the joint family properties. Both these case are coming up for trial. Since the parties in both the cases are one and the same and the issue viz., whether the properties are joint family properties and whether the petitioners have any rights to have their claim on the said properties, are interlinked, the petitioners filed the above O.P. with the above prayer. The said prayer was opposed by the respondents 1 and 2 contending that the releifs sought for in the two cases are different and, therefore, sought for dismissal of the transfer O.P. The court below, by the order impugned herein, has allowed the O.P., as stated supra. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. As can be seen from the order impugned, the documents filed in the partition suit and the maintenance petition under Sec. 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1955 are the same. In both these cases, the properties are claimed as joint family properties and unless both these cases are decided together and by one court, there is possibility of conflicting judgments. In such view of the matter, this court is of the considered view that the court below did not err in allowing the Transfer Petition. Having gone through the order impugned, I do not find any reason to differ with the finding recorded by the court below. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari August 13, 2010 MAS