ORDER 1. Petitioners are defendants 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13 and 14 in O. S.327 of 1989 before the Sub Court, Kollam. First respondent (plaintiff) filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties claiming 1/9 share on the allegation that the properties are ancestral properties of Veeriah Reddiar. Contention of the petitioners is that major items of properties are situated within the jurisdiction of Alappuzha Sub Court and that the places of business of the family are at Alappuzha, Ernakulam, Changanacherry, Thiruvalla and Kottayam and therefore the case may be transferred from the Sub Court, Kollam to the Sub Court, Alappuzha or to the Sub Court, Kottayam. 2. "A" schedule properties consist of various textile businesses alleged to be under the control of the first defendant and having places of business at Alappuzha, Ernakulam, Changanacherry, Thiruvalla and Kottayam. "B" schedule properties are immovable properties. Out of 11 items 6 items (items 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9) are within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Alappuzha. Items 1 and 4 properties are within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Kottayam. Item 10, a small item having 30 cents alone is within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Kollam. Item 11 is a flat at Bombay and item 5 is within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. "C" schedule consists of the list of motor vehicles alleged to be in the custody of the first defendant. "D" schedule consists of list of businesses which originally belonged to joint family and now shown to be the subject matter of a compromise decree in O. S.44 of 1985 and O. S.4 of 1985 of the Sub Court, Kollam. There is no prayer regarding these items in the present suit. "E" schedule consists of lists of partnerships and dissolution deeds which are sought to be declared as void. No item is within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Kollam. Partition sought for is with respect to all the above items. Plaint B relief is to declare the deeds mentioned in E schedule as void and not binding on the plaintiff. Plaint C relief is to direct the first defendant to render accounts of his management . of properties mentioned in A to C schedules. 3. Partition sought for is with respect to all the above items. Plaint B relief is to declare the deeds mentioned in E schedule as void and not binding on the plaintiff. Plaint C relief is to direct the first defendant to render accounts of his management . of properties mentioned in A to C schedules. 3. Petitioners contend that only a small item of immovable property (item 10 in A schedule) alone is within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Kollam and as the main relief sought. is against the first defendant to render accounts and as the major items of immovable properties are within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Alappuzha it is pre-eminently a fit case to allow the transfer. Contention of: the plaintiff is that he is the master of the litigation and so he cannot be compelled to approach any other court. It is also contended that transfer of the suit is not warranted as there will be no inconvenience to any of the parties if the suit is tried by the Sub Court, Kollam. 4. In Para.10 of the petition it is stated that the plaintiff, his brother and parents have immovable properties and two cine houses at Alappuzha and as they regularly visit Alappuzha for managing their business it will not be in any way inconvenient for them if the suit is transferred to the Sub Court, Alappuzha. This allegation is not specifically denied. In view of the fact that major items of properties are situated within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Alappuzha and as the plaintiff and his family members are having substantial business interests and properties at Alappuzha it would not in any manner create any inconvenience or hardship to them if the case is transferred from Kollam to Alappuzha. 5. Plaintiff's contention is that he being the master of the litigation cannot be driven from one court to another at the caprice and fancy of the defendants. In Salavandi Nadar v. Venugopala AIR 1960 Kerala 91 this Court held that if the plaintiff has the choice of the forum as arbiter litis and has chosen his court very strong reasons must be shown by the defendant to deprive the plaintiff of this choice. Though plaintiff has the choice of the forum as arbiter litis, convenience of the parties is also a decisive factor which requires consideration by the Court. Though plaintiff has the choice of the forum as arbiter litis, convenience of the parties is also a decisive factor which requires consideration by the Court. Convenience of both parties have to be weighed and the ultimate decision of the Court should be based on the balance of convenience. If a pedantic approach that plaintiff's choice of the court is the sole decisive factor is adopted in total disregard of the contentions of the defendants, it would end in denial of justice. Convenience of parties to the litigation is indeed a factor worthy of consideration by the Court in an application under S.24 C.P.C. But plaintiff should not be deprived of his right of choice of. forum on trivial grounds. That can be done only on strong and compelling reasons. In Ruchi Ram v. Sarab Narain AIR 1928 Lahore 159 the Court held: "The principle is well established that it is the right of the plaintiff to choose the forum for his action, and that in deciding whether the plaintiff should be deprived of that right, a very strong case must be made out. by the defendant, and further that in deciding whether a suit should or should not be transferred it is not merely the convenience of the defendant that has to be considered; but the plaintiff's convenience also should be borne in mind." Mere inconvenience pointed out by the defendant would not be sufficient to deprive the plaintiff of his choice of forum, The well accepted principle of law is that a transfer of a suit is effected by the Court for proper and convincing grounds. No court would grant transfer for the mere asking by a party. 6. Petitioners contend that as the major items of properties are situated within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Alappuzha it would be convenient to both parties to have the trial of the suit by that Court. It is pointed out that during the trial it might become necessary to appoint Commissioner for various purposes and so if the Commissioner is appointed by the Kollam Court it would entail huge expenditure which could be avoided if the suit is tried by the Alappuzha Court., Merely because plaintiff has instituted his suit in a court of his choice the Court cannot be oblivious of the inconveniences and difficulties of the defendants. In Kanhaiyalal Daga v. Sumerlal AIR 1940 Nagpur 145 it was held that if there is no extraordinary hardship or grave inconvenience plaintiff's place of choice should not be deprived. 7. But the essential guiding principle that the convenience of the both parties have to be weighed and the matter must ultimately turn on the balance of convenience cannot be ignored by any Court of law. As only a small item of property alone is within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Kollam and as the plaintiff would not be put to any hardship if the case is transferred from Kollam to Alappuzha where substantial items of the properties are situated and where the plaintiff and his family are also having business interests, I hold that on the balance of convenience of parties it is only fair and proper that the suit is transferred from the Sub Court, Kollam to the Sub Court, Alappuzha. For the reasons stated above, O.S. 327 of 1989 pending before the Sub Court, Kollam is transferred to the Sub Court, Alappuzha. The Civil Miscellaneous Case stands allowed. No costs.