Dakshina India Arya Vysya Sri Vasavi Kanyakaparameswari Dharma Paripalana Samastha, (Reg.) vs Segu Subbarayudu and Others

A. Gopal Rao, J.—Both the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are connected. Transfer C.M.P. No. 133 of 1994 is filed by M/s. Dakshina India Arya Vysya Sri Vasavi Kanyakaparameswari Dharma Paripalana Samstha, represented by its Managing trustee, Tirumala, Chittoor District, seeking trnasfer of Original Suit No. 39 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge''s Court, Gudivada in Krishna District, to the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupati for trying the same along with Original Suit No. 107/1994 on the file of Subordinate Judge''s Court at Tirupathi. Transfer C.M.P. No. 156 of 1994 is filed by the respondents 3 and 4 in Tr. C.M.P. 133/94, seeking transfer of Original suit No. 107/94 from the file of Subordinate Judge''s Court, Tirupati, to the file of Subordinate Judge''s Court, Gudivada, for trying the same along with Original Suit No. 39 of 1994 on the file of Subordinate Judge''s Court, Gudivada.

For the sake of convenience, in this order, parties will be referred to according to their array in Transfer C.M.P. No. 133/94 as ''petitioner'' and ''respondents''. Petitioner-Trust has collected donations in a sum of Rs. 1,01,116/- from the respondents, who are the residents of Gudivada, in Krishna District. By being the donor-Members, respondents are entitled for certain benefits/privileges, such as stay at Tirumala in the choultries built by the petitioner-trust at Tirumala on nominal rates for a particular period and for some other benefits. By being the donor-members of the trust, respondents went to Tirumala on 15-4-1.994 for staying at Tirumala for one day. The total number of members who visited Tirumala, i.e., respondents and others, is 19. Four rooms were allotted to them. Petitioner-trust charged nominal rates for two rooms and commercial rates for the rest of the two rooms for the stay of the respondents. There was some altercation between the petitioner-trust officials and the respondents in this regard. Respondents, however, paid the commercial rate for the two rooms, as demanded by the petitioner-trust besides paying the nominal rate for the two rooms. It is the case of the respondents that due to the altercation mentioned above, the managing members of the petitioner-trust came with weapons along with some goondas and beat the respondents at Tirumala. A complaint/report was lodged by the respondents with the police in this regard and the same was registered. Medical certificates obtained by the respondents were also filed along with the abovesaid complaint, and the said complaint is pending. On 24-4-1994, respondents received notice from the petitioner-trust calling upon them to show-cause as to why their donor-membership of the trust should not be cancelled and as to why the amount donated by them should not be appropriated and also damages in a sum of two lakh rupees for the incident that happended atg Tirumala should not be claimed. A suitable reply was given by the respondents on 2-5-1994, denying the claim made by the petitioner-trust in the show-cause notice and also making a counter-claim for damages in a sum of rupees three lakhs. On 7-5-1994, petitioner gave a notice to the respondents, stating that the membership of the respondents has been terminated and the amount denated by them has been appropriated, that the respondents will not be entitled to any benefits/privileges as donor-members of the trusthenceforth. Questioning the said action of the petitioner-trust, respondents filed O.S. 39/1994 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gudivada, claiming for a declaration that they continued to be donor-members of the trust and that they are entitled for all the benefits as donor-members of the trust. Along with the suit they filed I.A. 697/1994 praying for injunction and interim injunction was accordingly granted. The said suit O.S. 39/94 is valued for the purpose of Court-fee at 1,01,116/- which is same as the amount donated by them (respondents) to the trust. The order of injunction obtained in LA. 697/94 in O.S. 39/94 along with copies of plaint and the affidavit filed in support of injunction petition were transmitted to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgment due by the advocate for the respondents at Gudivada. As a counter-blast, petitioner-trust filed O.S.107/1994 in the Principal Subordinate Judge''s Court, Tirupathi, valuing the same at Rs. 54,000/- against the respondents for a declaration that the respondents are no longer donor-members of the trust and are not entitled for any benefits as donor-members.

Petitioner-trust, as mentioned already, filed Tr. C.M.P. 133/94 seeking transfer of O.S. 39/1994 from Subordinate Judge''s Court, Gudivada to the Subordinate Judge''s Court, Tirupati, for being tried along with O.S. No. 107 of 1994 on the file of the said Court. Respondents filed Tr. C.M.P. No. 156/94 seeking transfer of O.S. 107/94 from Subordinate Judge''s Court, Tirupathi to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gudivada, for being tried along with O.S. 39/1994 on the file of the said Court.

In both these transfer civil miscellaneous petitions, notices were ordered by this Court and stay of the respective suits was granted by this Court.

The learned Counsel for the respondents Sri Raja Rao, contends that the evidence of 19 members has to be recorded and the suit, O.S. 107/94 filed by the petitioner-trustee is subsequent to the date of filing of the suit by them in Gudivada Court (O.S. 39/94); that filing of O.S. 107/94 in the Sub-Court at Tirupathi by the petitioner-trust is mala fide as the petitioner-trust has already cancelled the donor-membership of the respondents and also appropriated the donation money. He, therefore, contends that the relief sought for in O.S. 107/94 by the petitioner-trust in Tirupathi Court is redundant in view of the notice already issued on 7-5-1994 by the petitioner-trust, referred to above, and the said suit is filed by the petitioner-trust only to harass the respondents.

Sri P.S. Narayana, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the declaration sought for by the respondents in the suit O.S.39/94 in the Sub-Court, Gudivada, affects the administration of the trust properties at Tirumala, and therefore, under the provisions of Section 16 C.P.C. the suit, O.S.39/94, in Sub-Court, Gudivada is not maintainable. He, therefore, contends that the suit, O.S.39/94 in Gudivada Court has to be transferred to the Sub-Court, Tirupathi.

Admittedly, the suit O.S. 39/1994, filed by the respondents in the Sub-Court at Gudivada for a declaration that the cancellation of their membership by the petitioner-trust is illegal and also for the consequential relief that they are entitled for all the benefits at Tirumala as donor-members of the petitioner-trust, was filed much earlier to the filing of the suit by the petitioner-trust in O.S. 107/94 in Prl. Sub-Court, Tirupathi against the respondents. As mentioned already, the petitioner-trust had already taken action by cancelling the donor-membership of the respondents and also declaring that the respondents are ineligible in future to have any rights as donor-members of the trust. In view of the facts narrated above, the respondents (plaintiffs in O.S.39/1994) are aggrieved by the action taken by the petitioner-trust and they have filed O.S. 39/1994 in Sub-Court at Gudivada, seeking for the reliefs mentioned already. Whether there are any merits in the suit filed by the trust in Prl. Sub-Court, Tirupathi (being O.S.107/94) and whether the cancellation of donor-membership of respondents and the appropriation of donation amounts by the petitioner-trust, are not matters for consideration in these transfer applications, at this stage. In any event, in the interests of justice, I consider it appropriate that the suit O.S. 39 of 1994 on the file of Subordinate Judge''s Court at Gudivada has to be heard and decided in the first instance. I do not see any valid reason for transferring O.S.39/94 from Gudivada Court to Tirupati Court for trial along with O.S.107/94 pending in that Court. Similarly, I do not also see any valid reason to transfer O.S. 107/94 from Tirupati Court to Gudivada Court for trial along with O.S.39 / 94 pending in that Court.

For the above reasons, both these transfer applications are dismissed. It is made clear that the trial in O.S.39 of 1994 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gudivada shall go on, and until O.S.39/1994 in the Gudivada Sub-Court is finally decided, the trial in O.S. 107 of 1994 in the Prl. Sub-Court, Tirupathi shall not be proceeded with. The trial in O.S. 107/94 is stayed till the disposal of O.S. 39/94 on the file of Sub-Court, Gudivada. The trial in O.S.107/94on the file of Prl. Sub-Court, Tirupathi, shall be taken up only after the disposal of O.S. No. 39 of 1994 by the Sub-Court at Gudivada. All orders passed so far in O.S. 107/1994 on the file of Prl. Sub-Court, Tirupathi, including the orders passed in I.A. No. 1007 of 1994 in that suit, shall remain in abeyance until the disposal of the suit, O.S. No. 39 of 1994, on the file of Subrodinate Judge''s Court, Gudivada. It is open to the petitioner-trust to take all such pleas available to it including the lack of the jurisdiction etc., in the suit O.S. 39/1994, on the file of Suboridnate Judge''s Court at Gudivada. It is needless to mention that the order, dated 18-8-1994 passed by this Court in C.M.P. No. 10136 of 1994 in Tr. C.M.P. No. 133/1994 is vacated.

Subject of the above, both the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs.