IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 22 of 2011 OS.249/2010 OF SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA PETITIONER -------------------- P.V.JOSEPH, S/O. VARGHESE, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, KUMBANADU KARA, KUMBANADU P.O., KOIPPURAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH RESPONDENT: --------------- GEORGE, S/O. JUSTINE, J.G.BHAVAN, NAGAKOTTUKONAM, NADUVURKOTTA DESOM, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK - 695 121. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Tr.P.(C). NO. 22 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The prayer in the Transfer Petition is to transfer O.S.No.249 of 2010, pending before the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara to the Sub Court, Thodupuzha, where O.S.No.47 of 2010 is pending. The Transfer Petition is very vehemently opposed by the respondent. 2. O.S.No.249 of 2010 is filed by the respondent against the petitioner for realisation of money on the basis of an agreement dated 20.5.2009. The petitioner disputed the transaction and said that he had not borrowed any amount from the respondent herein either on the basis of the agreement or otherwise. 3. O.S.No.47 of 2010 is filed by Zion Gospel Mission International, represented by its power of attorney holder Sreekumar, against Roy Joseph and George. George is the respondent herein. That suit is for a declaration of the plaintiff's title and possession over Tr.P.(C) NO.22 OF 2011 :: 2 :: the plaint schedule property and for annulling sale deed No.336/2010 executed in favour of George, the respondent. 4. O.S.No.49 of 2010 was filed by George, the respondent herein, against the petitioner herein for an injunction in respect of the same property as is involved in O.S.No.47 of 2010. All these suits are pending. 5. The case of the petitioner is that he is the trustee of Zion Gospel Mission International (hereinafter referred to as 'the Mission') and Roy Joseph, the first defendant in O.S.No.47 of 2010, was entrusted with the affairs of the Mission. Roy Joseph unauthorisedly transferred the property to George, the respondent herein. O.S.No.47 of 2010 was filed by the Mission in these circumstances. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that O.S.No.249 of 2010 was filed by the respondent herein against P.V.Joseph (petitioner) in his individual capacity and not as a trustee of the Mission. That suit has nothing to do with the dispute involved in O.S.Nos.47 of 2010 and 49 of 2010, pending before the Sub Tr.P.(C) NO.22 OF 2011 :: 3 :: Court, Thodupuzha and Munsiff's Court, Devikulam respectively. The case of the petitioner is that after the other two suits were filed, an agreement was concocted and O.S.No.249 of 2010 was filed against him by the respondent herein. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the three suits are interconnected and the dispute centers round on the same question, though the relief prayed for may be different and the capacity of the party in each suit may also be different. The documents to be produced and the evidence to be let in are common in all the three suits and, therefore, it is just and necessary to transfer O.S.No.249 of 2010 to the Sub Court, Thodupuzha, to be tried along with O.S.No.47 of 2010. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner proposes to file a Transfer Petition before the District Court, Thodupuzha to transfer O.S.No.49 of 2010 to the Sub Court, Thodupuzha. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent raised another objection that in O.S.No.47 of 2010, Roy Joseph is the first defendant and he is not a party to this Transfer Petition. According Tr.P.(C) NO.22 OF 2011 :: 4 :: to the counsel for the respondent, the Transfer Petition would not be maintainable in these circumstances. 9. After carefully considering the pleadings in the cases, I do not think that it is necessary to transfer O.S.No.249 of 2010, for the following reasons: (1) O.S.No.249 of 2010 is filed by the respondent against the petitioner in the individual capacity of the petitioner; (2) O.S.No.47 of 2010 is filed by the Mission of which the petitioner claims to be a trustee. But that suit was filed by the power of attorney holder of the Mission (Sri.Sreekumar). The petitioner is nowhere shown as a party to the suit. (3) In O.S.No.47 of 2010, the dispute is regarding the property allegedly belonging to the Mission and the validity of the document executed by Roy Joseph in favour of George. (4) O.S.No.249 of 2010 is a money suit. The claim is made on an agreement allegedly executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. (5) The issues to be tried in O.S.No.249 of 2010 and O.S.No.47 of 2010 are entirely different. (6) Even though during evidence certain common facts may arise, that by itself is not a ground for transfer of O.S.No.249 of 2010. (7) The subject matter involved in both the suits are distinct and different. (8) The reliefs Tr.P.(C) NO.22 OF 2011 :: 5 :: prayed for in the two suits are also distinct and different. (9) The first defendant in O.S.No.47 of 2010 is not made a party to the Transfer Petition. For the aforesaid reasons, the Transfer Petition is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/