JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.775 of 2019 in I.A.No.298 of 2019 in O.S.No.228 of 2019, dated 29.09.2021 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 read with 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, to pass an order withdrawing the suit in O.S.No.228 of 2019 from the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai and to transfer the same to the file of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai to be tried along with the suit in O.S.No.1035 of 2021. Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 read with 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, to pass an order withdrawing the suit in O.S.No.1037 of 2019 from the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai and to transfer the same to the file of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai to be tried along with the suit in O.S.No.1035 of 2021.) Common Order: 1. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner in C.R.P(MD)No.1359 of 2022 (herein after referred as revision petitioner)/ Respondent in Tr.C.M.P(MD)Nos.96 and 97 of 2023. 2. The revision petitioner is the respondent in the above two Tr.C.M.P(MD)Nos.96 and 97 of 2023. The above two transfer civil miscellaneous petitions have been filed by the respondents in CRP(MD)No.1359 of 2022. 3. The petitioners in the Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.96 of 2023 are the defendants 2 and 4 in the following suits filed by the revision petitioner. S.No. O.S.No. Court 1 228 of 2019 II Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai 2 1037 of 2022 II Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai 4. The petitioners in the above transfer miscellaneous petitions has also filed the suit in O.S.No.1035 of 2021 before the First Additional Sub Court, Madurai for recovery of possession. 5. The revision petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.228 of 2018 against the four defendants, namely, P.Indirakumari, the grandmother of the revision petitioner/mother of the second respondent in the revision petition, grandfather of the revision petitioner/father of the second respondent in the revision petition and against the petitioners in the above transfer civil miscellaneous petitions 6. 5. The revision petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.228 of 2018 against the four defendants, namely, P.Indirakumari, the grandmother of the revision petitioner/mother of the second respondent in the revision petition, grandfather of the revision petitioner/father of the second respondent in the revision petition and against the petitioners in the above transfer civil miscellaneous petitions 6. The brief facts of the case according to the second respondent/fourth defendant is that the suit property originally belonged to one V.Govindarajulu Naidu who settled the suit schedule property to late P.Indirakumari (since deceased), grandmother of the revision petitioner/mother of the second respondent in the revision petition/respondent in the transfer civil miscellaneous petition by a settlement deed, dated 30.01.1974. 7. During her life time, the revision petitioner’s grandmother, late P.Indirakumari (since deceased) on 07.05.2019 settled the property to her second son, who is a bachelor. Therefore, O.S.No.228 of 2019 was filed by the revision petitioner. I.A.No.298 of 2019 in O.S.No.228 of 2018 was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C for rejecting the plaint. During the interregnum, since the first defendant late P.Indirakumari died on 07.05.2019. Therefore I.A.No.775 of 2019 was filed to amend the cause the title in the above application by the respondents in civil revision petition. The trial Court has passed an order allowing the application to amend the cause title in I.A.No.298 of 2019 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. The relevant portion of the order impugned in the above civil revision petition reads as under: "5. Both side heard. Case records perused. The respondent admitted that the first defendant died and this petitioner is one of the legal heir of the deceased first defendant. And there is no strong objection raised by respondent with respect to the properties amendment. And this Court has to grant sufficient opportunity to both parties to contest and establish their side case. And this petitioner has to prove the entire pleadings setforth by him on the strength of documents. And to avoid multiplicity of proceedings this petition is decided to be allowed. In the result, for the discussed reasons, this petition is allowed without costs." 8. And this petitioner has to prove the entire pleadings setforth by him on the strength of documents. And to avoid multiplicity of proceedings this petition is decided to be allowed. In the result, for the discussed reasons, this petition is allowed without costs." 8. It is the case of the contesting respondent in the civil revision petition, who are the defendants in the suit filed by the revision petitioner that the application is being filed in the name of the minor by the elder brother son of late P.Indirakumari/father of the revision petitioner. He further submitted that there is no merit in C.R.P(MD)No.1359 of 2022. He further submitted that late P.Indira Kumari settled the property for her second son during her life time and that the revision petitioner or the other son of late P.Indirakumari, namely the father of the revision petitioner cannot claim any right over the property as it is not an ancestral property. Therefore, the application filed for amendment to the cause title and averments in the application filed for rejecting the plaint has been rightly allowed. 9. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent in the civil revision petition who is also represented the interest of the petitioners in the transfer civil miscellaneous petitions submit that the cases can be transferred to be heard together. 10. In my view, the Trial Court has not committed an error while allowing I.A.No.775 of 2019 in I.A.No.298 of 2019 in O.S.No.228 of 2019. The Court has not determined the issue in the suit or for that matter in I.A.No.298 of 2019 one way or the other. The Court has merely recorded the death of first defendant late P.Indirakumari. Therefore, challenge to the impugned order passed in I.A.No.775 of 2019 in I.A.No. 298 of 2019 in O.S.No.228 of 2019 has no merits. Therefore, civil revision petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.228 of 2019 is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. 11. The Court has merely recorded the death of first defendant late P.Indirakumari. Therefore, challenge to the impugned order passed in I.A.No.775 of 2019 in I.A.No. 298 of 2019 in O.S.No.228 of 2019 has no merits. Therefore, civil revision petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.228 of 2019 is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. 11. Considering the fact that there are three suits pending before the two different Courts, namely, First Additional Sub Court and Second Additional Sub Court, Madurai in the above three mentioned suits and in the absence of any objection to transfer by the revision petitioner/ respondent in the above transfer civil miscellaneous petitions, the Court inclined to allow the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition Nos.96 and 97 of 2023 by directing transfer of O.S.No.298 of 2019 and O.S.No.1037 of 2022 pending on the file of Second Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai to First Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai for being tried along with O.S.No.1033 of 2021. 12. In the result, Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed and Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.