It is well-known that the verification of partial correctness properties of imperative programs can be reduced to the satisfiability problem for constrained Horn clauses (CHCs). However, state-of-the-art solvers for CHCs (CHC solvers) based on predicate abstraction are sometimes unable to verify satisfiability because they look for models that are definable in a given class A of constraints, called A-definable models. We introduce a transformation technique, called Predicate Pairing (PP), which is able, in many interesting cases, to transform a set of clauses into an equisatisfiable set whose satisfiability can be proved by finding an A-definable model, and hence can be effectively verified by CHC solvers. We prove that, under very general conditions on A, the unfold/fold transformation rules preserve the existence of an A-definable model, i.e., if the original clauses have an A-definable model, then the transformed clauses have an A-definable model. The converse does not hold in general, and we provide suitable conditions under which the transformed clauses have an A-definable model iff the original ones have an A-definable model. Then, we present the PP strategy which guides the application of the transformation rules with the objective of deriving a set of clauses whose satisfiability can be proved by looking for A-definable models. PP introduces a new predicate defined by the conjunction of two predicates together with some constraints. We show through some examples that an A-definable model may exist for the new predicate even if it does not exist for its defining atomic conjuncts. We also present some case studies showing that PP plays a crucial role in the verification of relational properties of programs (e.g., program equivalence and non-interference). Finally, we perform an experimental evaluation to assess the effectiveness of PP in increasing the power of CHC solving.