THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Tr.C.M.P. No.35 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners filed O.S.No.1518 of 2006 in the Court of VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondents for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties therein. The 2nd respondent herein filed O.S.No.63 of 2007 in the Court of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which is said to have been since made over to the Court of X Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), for the relief of recovery of possession against the petitioners 1 and 3 herein. The petitioners filed Tr.O.P.No.2469 of 2008 in the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, with a prayer to transfer O.S.No.1518 of 2006 to the Court of III Additional Chief Judge. Through order dated 22-10-2009, the learned Judge, dismissed the Tr.O.P. Hence this Tr.C.M.P. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. The subject-matter of the two suits, referred to above, are totally different. O.S.No.1518 of 2006 is filed for the relief of partition and separate possession, whereas O.S.No.63 of 2007 is for recovery of possession, of a totally different item of property. Though the parties in O.S.No.63 of 2007 are also parties to O.S.No.1518 of 2006, vast number of them, in O.S.No.1518 of 2006 do not figure as parties in the former suit. Things would have been different altogether, in case the item of property, in respect of which, relief is claimed in O.S.No.63 of 2007; is one of the items in the other suit. Another important aspect is that the defence offered by the petitioners 1 and 3 in O.S.No.63 of 2007 is the one, of oral gift, in favour of late Nizamuddin. In other words, they recognized the exclusive title of the 2nd respondent in that property. The very basis for the other suit is that the items mentioned therein were held in joint by three brothers, viz., respondents 1 and 2 and late Nizamuddin. Viewed from any angle, there was no basis for seeking transfer of O.S.No.1518 of 2006. The Tr.C.M.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.24-06-2010. KO