This is a petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to have O.S.No.34/2013 pending before the Munsiff Court, Chalakudy transferred to Family Court, Irinjalakuda to be tried along with O.P.No.60/2014 pending before the latter court. 2. The facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of the petition are as follows.
As per Annexure (a) agreement, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent who is the wife of the petitioner agreed that the building put up in the tharavad property shall belong jointly to them. In case the building is to be sold, the newly acquired building also shall belong jointly to them.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that contrary to the terms of the agreement, the 2nd respondent has transferred the entire property in favour of the daughter of the 2nd respondent and she has laid a suit as O.S.No.34/2013 before the Munsiff's Court, Chalakudy seeking to injunct the petitioner from entering the property. According to the petitioner, in the original petition filed by him as O.P.No.60/2014 pending before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda in which his wife is a party, he claims half right over the property on the basis of Annexure (a). It is pointed out that the issues arising in the suit before the Munsiff Court, Chalakudy and the Family Court, Irinjalakuda are one and the same and it is only proper that the two proceedings are decided by the same court. Therefore, the petitioner seeks transfer of O.S.No.34/2013 from Munsiff Court, Chalakudy to Family Court, Irinjalakuda.
4. The petition, to say the least, is misconceived and ill- advised. The suit filed by the daughter of the 2nd respondent is for temporary injunction and the marital relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent does not come up for consideration therein. In the said suit, the 2nd respondent is not a party. If the petitioner has got a case that the daughter of the 2nd respondent has not obtained absolute right over the property, he is free to agitate the said claim before the Munsiff Court, Chalakudy and he can also take a contention that the suit is bad by mis joinder of necessary parties.
5. In the light of the contention taken in the written statement, it could not be said that the suit pending before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda needs to be tried along with the suit pending before the Munsiff Court, Chalakudy since the scope of the latter suit is outside the ambit of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. Merely by filing a petition as O.P.No.60/2014 before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda in which the petitioner seeks a relief against his wife, it could not be said that transfer of O.S.No.34/2013 before Munsiff Court, Chalakudy sought for by the petitioner be allowed. May be the issue regarding the title of the plaintiff in O.S.No.34/2013 arises for consideration. But, the proceedings are under two different jurisdictions and the jurisdiction of the Family Court is specifically referable to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. This Court is unable to come to the conclusion that O.S.No.34/2013 falls within the ambit of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act.
This Transfer Petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp // True Copy // P.A. to Judge.