High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-07-05Transfer petition dismissed; no transfer ordere...

Remanarayanan v. Ganga M.J. (TR.P(C) No. 483 of 2021)

Case / Petition Number:TR.P(C) NO. 483 OF 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2022-07-05
Court Decision / Holding: Transfer petition dismissed; the court declines to order transfer under Section 24 CPC. However, it directs the Family Court Kollam to facilitate the petitioner’s participation via video conferencing on posting dates and allows appointment of a power of attorney holder to represent her, so as to mitigate inconvenience.
Final Disposition: Transfer petition dismissed; no transfer ordered; petitioner may appear via video conferencing; may appoint an agent/power of attorney; personal appearance not insisted on for all postings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Remanarayanan

Respondents

Ganga M.J.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Naveen.T
• Chithra Chandrasekharan
• V.S. Abhishek
• Biji A. Manikoth

Counsels for Respondents

• K.V. Anil Kumar
• B. Lal

Case Synopsis & Summary

This transfer petition (under Sec. 24 CPC) before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam concerns the transfer of O.P. No. 1059/2021 from the Family Court, Kollam, to the Family Court, Kannur. The petitioner, Remanarayanan, aged 73, a widow diagnosed with cancer and cataract, contends that she cannot reasonably defend the proceedings in Kollam due to her age and illness, lack of a chaperone, and the transportation burden (approximately 450 km one way). The respondent, Ganga M.J., seeks a decree for recovery of patrimony and other reliefs; she opposes transfer on grounds of her own renal illness and travel hardship, arguing transfer would cause severe inconvenience. The sole issue is whether Annexure-A1 should be transferred to Kannur. The court notes both parties are women and acknowledges the petitioner's health, but emphasizes the respondent’s comparative hardship as the dominant factor, given she is the dominus litis and the alleged cause of action arises in Kollam. The judgment cites Indian Overseas Bank v. Chemical Construction Co. and Others to reinforce the dominus litis principle and warns against transferring merely for convenience. It also cites Vidya Mundakat v. Akhilesh Jayaram to reject an invariable rule mandating transfer. Ultimately, the court denies transfer, but orders that the petitioner may appear via video conferencing or appoint an agent, to redress the inconvenience. The petition is dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 24

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Dominus litis (the owner of the suit has the right to choose the forum)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues for transfer on grounds of extreme age, serious illness, and lack of a chaperone, making travel from Kannur to Kollam impracticable. She asserts the dominus litis principle and the respondent’s actions create substantial hardship. She contends the cause of action arises in Kollam and seeks convenience and access to a fair defence, asserting that forcing a transfer would impose avoidable expense and burden on a vulnerable party.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent opposes transfer, highlighting her own renal illness and travel difficulty to Kannur, arguing that the transfer would cause severe hardship. She maintains the case relates to patrimony and other reliefs and that Kollam remains the appropriate forum because the action arises there. She emphasizes the impracticality of travel even if transfer were granted and contends that the petition should be dismissed to avoid undue hardship.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Indian Overseas Bank, Madras v. Chemical Construction Company and Others	(1979) 4 SCC 358	Positive	Used to affirm the dominus litis principle, indicating courts should not lightly transfer fora merely on convenience and that the plaintiff has the right to choose the forum.
Vidya Mundakat v. Akhilesh Jayaram	2021 (6) KHC 506	Positive	Cited to illustrate that there is no invariable rule mandating transfer solely due to inconvenience; discretion under Section 24 is not automatic.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Remanarayanan v. Ganga M.J. (TR.P(C) No. 483 of 2021) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**TR.P(C) NO. 483 OF 2021** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1944 TR.P(C) NO. 483 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(OTHERS) 1059/2021 OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM** ## **PETITIONER:** REMANARAYANAN AGED 73 YEARS W/O.NARAYANAN, HINDU, RESIDING AT REMA, CHOVVA, KANNOTHUMCHAL P.O., KANNUR VILLAGE, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 006. BY ADVS. NAVEEN.T CHITHRA CHANDRASEKHARAN V.S.ABHISHEK BIJI A MANIKOTH ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** GANGA M.J. AGED 39 YEARS D/O.JEEWA, HINDU, FEMALE, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT KRISHNA BHAVAN, HOUSE NO.1, GURUNAGAR, KALLUMTHAZHAM P.O., KILIKOLLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 004. BY ADVS. K.V.ANIL KUMAR B.LAL THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **TR.P(C) NO. 483 OF 2021** **2** ## **ORDER** The transfer petition is filed under Sec.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to transfer O.P No.1059/2021 (Annexure-A1) from the Family Court, Kollam to the Family Court, Kannur. 2. The petitioner’s case, in brief, in the memorandum of transfer petition is that, she is the respondent in Annexure-A1, which is filed by the respondent in this original petition, seeking recovery of money and other ancillary reliefs. The petitioner is a widow, who is aged 73 years, and is a cancer patient. She is also suffering from cataract disease. She had two sons; the older son was married to the respondent, but he died on 15.6.2021 due to unknown reasons. The younger son is suffering from Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (PPMS). The petitioner is residing at Chovva in Kannur **TR.P(C) NO. 483 OF 2021** **3** District. The respondent is not entitled to any relief in Annexure-A1. The allegations levelled in Annexure-A1 are false and fabricated. There is no person to chaperone the petitioner from Kannur to Kollam to defend Annexure-A1. Hence, Annexure-A1 may be transferred from the Family Court, Kollam to the Family Court, Kannur. 3. The transfer petition is opposed by the respondent, who has filed a detailed counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that she has filed Annexure-A1, seeking a decree for recovery of patrimony and other ancillary reliefs. The respondent is suffering from renal problems and is undergoing treatment at the Travancore Medical College Hospital, Kollam, as evidenced by Annexure-R1. It would be impossible for the respondent to travel all the way from Kollam to Kannur, if Annexure A1 is transferred to the Family Court, Kannur. There is no person to chaperone the respondent from Kollam to Kannur, which is more than 450 kms on one side. If the transfer is **TR.P(C) NO. 483 OF 2021** **4** allowed, the respondent would be put to severe inconvenience and hardship. Hence the transfer petition may be dismissed. 4. Heard; Sri.T. Naveen, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.V. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. The sole point that arises for consideration in this transfer petition is whether Annexure-A1 is to be transferred from the Family Court, Kollam to the Family Court, Kannur? 6. Both the petitioner and the respondent are women. Evidently, as per Annexure-A2 treatment records, the petitioner is suffering from cancer and as per Annexure-R1, the respondent is suffering from renal disease. The respondent has sought for a decree for recovery of patrimony and other ancillary reliefs, to recover money and gold ornaments allegedly entrusted to the petitioner and her late son-husband of the respondent - **TR.P(C) NO. 483 OF 2021** **5** in connection with the marriage. She has alleged that the cause of action to file the original petition has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Kollam. It is the right of the plaintiff to choose the Court before which a proceeding is to be instituted, since she is the dominus litis of the proceeding, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Indian Overseas Bank, Madras v. Chemical Constrution Company and Others [** (1979) 4 SCC 358]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that Courts should not lightly change the forum and compel the plaintiff to go to another court, which will cause consequent increase in inconvenience and expense in prosecuting his suit and a mere balance of convenience in favour of proceeding in another court, albeit a material consideration, may not always be a sure criterion justifying transfer. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in **Vidya Mundakat v. Akhilesh Jayaram** [(2021 (6) KHC 506) has **TR.P(C) NO. 483 OF 2021** **6** categorically held that there is no invariable rule that whenever a woman approaches this Court and points out certain inconvenience, this Court is obliged to exercise the discretion under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Going by the allegations and counter-allegations made by the petitioner and the respondent as against each other, in the transfer petition and the counter affidavit, I am of the view that, it is the comparative hardship and convenience of the respondent that has to be given due preference and weightage, since she is the dominus litis, and is suffering from renal disease. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and order the transfer of Annexure-A1 from the Family Court, Kollam to the Family Court, Kannur. Nevertheless, since the petitioner is aged 73 years and is a cancer patient, I am of the firm view that her inconvenience can be redressed by ordering the dispensation of her personal appearance **TR.P(C) NO. 483 OF 2021** **7** before the Family Court, Kollam, unless specifically ordered by the Family Court. 9. Taking into account, the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the Family Court, Kollam, not to insist for the personal appearance of the petitioner before the Family Court, Kollam, on all posting dates. The petitioner would be at liberty to avail the video conferencing facility, in case of any conciliation proceeding and seek the appointment of an agent/power of attorney holder to represent her before the Family Court, Kollam, if so advised. With the above observations, this transfer petition is dismissed. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS** **ma/05/7/2022** **JUDGE** **TR.P(C) NO. 483 OF 2021** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 483/2021** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.(OTHERS) NO.1059/2021 PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION. Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE OUTPATIENT RECORD AND DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY MVR CANCER CENTRE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE, CALICUT. RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure-R1 A true copy of the medical certificate dated 04.10.2021 issued from Travancore Medical College Hospital, Kollam .