P. Sadayandi Nadar v. Venugopala Chetty

1. This is a petition for transfer of O.S. No. 45 of 1956 of the Sub-court, Ottappalam to the Sub-court, Tuticorin. The petitioners are the defendants 11 to 15 in the suit.



2. The suit was for partition of the plaintiffs one-half share as against the defendants 1 to 10 who comprised the other branch of the joint Hindu family of the parties. The plaint merely averred as the reason for the suit that the plaintiff was dissatisfied with the management of his brothers sons, the defendants 1 and 2 of the B schedule immoveables and the C schedule movables belonging to the family and entrusted to them. All the B schedule items except item 11, lay within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Courts of Tuticorin and Ramnad and the parties were also residents at Sattur. The suit could accordingly have been laid in either of these Sub-Courts but the plaint was filed in the Sub-Court at Ottapalam though properly in view to the situation of the item 11, viz., the West Coast Match Co. at that place. The plaint did not however mention the reason for the choice. It also took in only the defendants 1 to 10.



3. The defendants 1, 2 and 3 to 6 filed separate written statements in the case without disclosing much of a contest. They admitted the existence of the joint family as alleged in the plaint but pleaded ignorance as to whether B or C schedule items belonged to the family. The second defendant acknowledged the fact of his management but claimed that it was only as executor under his fathers will and further that he had already effected certain alienations in respect of some of the B schedule items. These alienees being the defendants 11 to 17, were on his special motion later impleaded. It may be added that plaintiff has since applied for impleading four more alienees alleged to have been discovered by him. Sometime after their own impleading it was that the defendants 11 to 15 filed this petition



4. The affidavit exchanged between the parties to this petition disclose that the petitioners 1 to 4, viz., defendants 11 to 14 are residents of Tinnevelly District and the properties alienated to them are also in that District while the 5th petitioner, 15th defendant is a resident of Ramanathapuram District, the property mortgaged to her also being within that District. The 15th defendant has further obtained preliminary decree in O. S.57 of 1956 on the file of the Ramanathapuram Sub-Court at Madura and is taking steps for final decree therein. The distance of the place of residence of all the parties to Ottapalam is more than 200 miles. The language of all the parties is Tamil and that of the witnesses who would have to be examined is again Tamil while the language of the Sub-Court at Ottapalam is Malayalam. These facts, taken along with the frame of the plaint and the conduct of the suit so far, it is urged on behalf of the petitioners, indicate that the forum at Ottapalam was chosen in collusion between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 10, with a view to defeat and delay the petitioners and other alienees as far as possible. Learned counsel says that in the interests of the fair trial of the suit and of convenience and the saving of avoidable time, labour and expense it is just and necessary to have the suit transferred as prayed for. But he left the choice of the Sub-Courts at Tuticorin or Ramanathapuram at Madura to the plaintiff.



5. The petition was strenuously contested on behalf of the plaintiff on the basis mainly that the choice of forum for instituting the suit is that of the plaintiff and he having exercised it, it was not for the defendants in the suit to say differently. No adequate ground for transfer had been alleged either. On the other hand, according to the plaintiff, he would be put to unnecessary loss and inconvenience because he has already employed competent legal adviser for the suit. The contention of the petitioners that solitary item 11 the Match Co., should not have been made the ground for choice of forum, was met by the plaintiff, by saying that that item was more valuable than all the rest of the items put together. Further support for the plaintiff was sought to be gathered from an affidavit of the 4th respondent-3rd defendant, Saraswathy Ammal particularly suggesting that a Receiver application to safeguard the item 11 and its profits might possibly be called for so as to render inexpedient any disturbance of the suit as now laid.



6. There can, in my opinion, be no doubt about the maintainability of the petition. S.22 and 23 of the Civil Procedure Code deal with a case where the plaintiff has a choice of two or more courts in which he may properly institute a suit and the defendant can then apply to have the case transferred out of the court in which it is filed to another court. There are three possibilities contemplated (a) where the alternative courts are subordinate to the same appellate court, (b) where they are subordinate to different appellate courts, and (c) where they are subordinate to different High Courts. This latest category is dealt with by S.23 (3) under which the present petition is made.

"23 (3) Where such Courts are subordinate to different High Courts, the application shall be made to the High Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Court in which the suit is brought is situate".

In Abdul Rahiman & Co. v. Rambux. A.I.R. 1916 Nag. 31, Stanyon, A.J.C. no doubt expressed the view that S.24, C.P.C. was exhaustive of the judicial power to transfer suits, that S.22 did not grant express power on the High Court to make the transfer and S.23 (3) has no value for the purpose of procedure. But this opinion was overruled by a later decision of that court in Firm Kanhaiyalal Daga v. Zumerlal, A.I.R. 1940 Nag. 14

5. (Stone, C. J. and Vivian Bose, J.) which held quite definitely.

"The High Court has jurisdiction to transfer a suit pending in a Court subordinate to it to a Court subordinate to another High Court."

See also Ram Kumar v. Tula Ram A.I.R. 1920 Pat 138, (Jwala Prasad, J.) where the learned judge said:

"I do not agree with the view taken by Mr. Stanyon in Abu Baker Abdul Rahiman & Co. v. Rambux A. I. R.1919 Nag. 31, that a High Court has no such power of determination and such a determination will in any way create anomaly or difficulty. An order of a High Court under S.22, that a suit shall proceed in a Court subordinate to another High Court, will be final and it will not be open to another High Court to refuse the suit being tried in the Court subordinate to it having jurisdiction to try it."

Indeed the competency of the petition was not objected to by learned counsel for the respondents.

7. The question now is whether the exercise of this power under S.23 (3) is in this case, expedient. Now in considering a petition by a defendant under this section, the courts have laid emphasis on the circumstance that the plaintiff had the choice of the forum as arbiter litis and has chosen his court. Therefore it has been laid down that very strong reasons must be shown by the petitioner defendant to deprive the plaintiff of this choice. So it was said in Pragji Soorji & Co. v. Kalu Mal-Shori Mal & Co. A.I.R. 1924 Lah. 306, where a large number of cases on the subject were considered.

"The rule to be deduced from the authorities, particularly the most directly applicable, Jawahir Kumari Bebi v. Murash Chandra Bose, (1920) 1 Pal L. T. 389, and Hindustan Assurance and Mutual Benefit Society Ltd. v. Mulraj (1915) 27 M.L.J. 645 is that the right of a plaintiff to institute a suit in a court in which the law permits him to sue should not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction unless the suit is brought in bad faith for the purpose of working injustice to which the defendant would not be subjected if suit were brought in another competent court. Here I can discern-no such intention on the part of the present plaintiffs and all that the defendants have succeeded in showing is that it would be more convenient to them to have the action tried at Bombay."

" Reference may also be made to Firm Kanhaiyalal Daga v. Zumerlal, A.I.R. 1940 Nag. 145 already cited, for the proposition.

"In deciding the question whether it is expedient to order transfer of the suit the convenience of the parties is indeed a factor which enters into consideration, but it is obvious that the convenience of both parties, have to be weighed and the matter must ultimately turn on the balance of convenience."

In Logan v. Bank of Scotland (1906) I. K. B. 141 the action was brought in England for damages for misrepresentation in the prospectus of a company of which the Bank of Scotland were bankers. All the parties lived in Scotland except one defendant Scott who resided in London and who was held out to be a substantial defendant, being an undischarged bankrupt. All the transactions which gave rise to the alleged cause of action took place in Scotland. The Bank of Scotland had no branch out of Scotland except one in London. The Company was registered in Scotland; its business was carried out exclusively in Scotland In the circumstances the Court of Appeal restored the order of the Master in Chambers which had stayed the proceedings on the ground that the action was veracious and oppressive and an abuse of the process of the Court.



8. It seems to me that there is much similarity between the suit here filed in Ottapalam and the action laid in England in the Scottish Bank case above. It was rather remarkable that the plaintiff did not know anything about the assignments effected by the 2nd defendant whom he brought in the suit and it required the 2nd defendant to reveal them and require the impleading of the alienees concerned. The plaintiff, on being asked by me, hastened to disaffirm these alienations though he has not so far amended the plaint. The plaintiff further evinced keenness in this court, to get a stay of further proceedings in O. S.57 of 1956 at the instance of the 15th defendant decree-holder. It would seem on the whole that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 10 had not much of a real difference between them in the whole matter of partition or otherwise and Ottapalam was chosen as the venue of a merely seeming litigation between them. I am not impressed that the transfer from Ottapalam as prayed for is calculated to involve the plaintiff in heavier expense. I think on the other hand the defendants alienees would be put to extra-ordinary hardship and grave inconvenience if the suit is not transferred.



9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff said that if I decide to allow transfer it may be to the Ramanathapuram Court. I therefore allow the petition but direct that the suit herein be transferred to the Ramanathapuram Sub Court at Madura. There will be no order as to costs however.

Allowed.