Allowed

M/S. Hotel Ekasila, Hyd v. Prl Secy, Municipal Administration, Hyd and 2 Ot

Telangana HC29 Dec 2025WP/3894/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Municipal commissioner cancelled the firm's mutation on the view that the dissolution of the earlier partnership was undocumented and unregistered. The High Court found the dissolution and new partnership deeds unchallenged and valid, held the cancellation erroneous, set aside the impugned proceedings and remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing all parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings No.A2/30553/2014 dated 08.01.2015 set aside; matter remanded to respondent No.2 for fresh adjudication with notice and hearing; no costs.

M/S. Hotel Ekasila, Hyd Vs Prl Secy, Municipal… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁸³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE TWENW NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LA(MI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3894 OF 2015

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/S. HOTEL EKASILA, SVP Road, Warnagal,^{Rep. by its Managing Partner,Sri.} Rama Upendram Son of Kitchaiah, aged about 78^years,R/9 !-8-10211811,^Flat No.104, ilnd Floor, Pakal Mansion, Shbnkermutt, Nallakunta^Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State Of Telangana, Rep By lts Principal Secreatary,^Municipal Administration, Secretariat Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Warnagal,, Warangal^District.

¶14

3 Sri. D. Prabhakar Reddy, S/o Late D. Veera Reddy Aged^{qboqt Major, No 2-} 7-186, Excise Colony Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal^District.

¶15

4 Meridian Plaza, Flat No. 304, H.No.2-1-210, Thakur^{Singh Towers, Shankar} nagar, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanmakonda, Warangal^{Urban District, Rep by its} partner Chinthireddy Devender Reddy.

¶16

5 Chinthireddy Kodanda Ram Reddy, S/o^{Raji Reddy, Aggd 49 years,-Occ:} Business, Fl/o H.No. 1-123, YellapurVillage, Hasanparthy^{Mandal, Warangal} Urban District.

¶17

6 Chinthireddy Devender Reddy, S/o Raji Reddy, Aged^{45 ygqrs, O.cqi} Business, R/o H.NO.1-123, Y-ellapur Village,^{Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal} Ubran District.

¶18

Respondents No. 4 to 6 are impleaded as^{per C.O dated11.07.2018in l.A No} 112018

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be} pleased to lssue a appropriate writ or orders or direction, more^{particularly one in} the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring^{proceedingsNO.A2I3055312014 dated}

¶21

8-1-2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent, as un-sustainable and unjust, consequently set-aside the same.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the hearing of writ petition No. 3894 of 2015 to an earliest date.

¶24

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 5147 OF 2015)

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Suspend Proceedings No.A213055312014 dated 8-1-2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VEDULA VENKATRAMANA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI POTTIGARI SRIDHAR REDDY

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No 1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No 2: SRI PASHAM MOHITH, STANDING COUNSEL

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No 3: SRI N. SRIDHAR REDDY

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents No 4 To 6: SRI M. AVINASH REDDY

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶33

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

WP.No.3894 of 2015

Dated:29.12.2025

Between:

A4/s Hotel Ekasila, Warangal, Reptd by its Managing PartnerSri Rama Upendram

¶38

...Petitioner

¶39

And:

¶40

The State of Telangana,

¶41

reptd by Principal Secretary,

¶42

Munic ipal Adminis tratton,

¶43

Hvderabad and five others.

¶44

. Respondents

¶45

¶46

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶47

WRIT PETITION No.3894 of 2015

¶48

ORDER

¶49

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.A2l3055312014, dated 08.01 .2015, issued by respondent No.2 as unsustainable and unjust, and consequently, to set aside the same.

¶50

By the impugned proceedings, the earlier mutation proceedings dated 14.05.2008, effected in favour of petitioner, represented by its partners R.Upendram and four others, was cancelled and the entries that stood up to the year 2008 in the name of 'Hotel Ekasila' was restored.

¶51

Heard Sri Vedula Venkatramana, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel-onrecord for petitioner, Sri Pasham Mohith, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri M.Avinash Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6.

¶52

The facts in nut-shell that lead to filing of the present writ Petition are that earlier, the petitioner herein, on an apprehension thaqgespondent No.3 herein would get his name mutated in place of

¶53

¶54

LNA, J lltP.No.3894 of 2015

¶55

the petitioner by pressurizing respondent No.2 herein, filed writ Petition No.15208 of 2ot2 and this court vide order dated 26.08.2014, disposed of the said writ petition with a direcrion to respondent No.2 herein to consider the representation of respondent No.3 herein as well as the objections of the petitioner, with reference to the documents produced by them, and then take an appropriate decision in the matter keeping in view the legal position that he cannot adjudicate serious issues of title to the property. In purported compliance of the aforesaid order, the impugned proceedings are passed.

¶56

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, apart from other grounds raised in the writ affidavit, principally contended that respondent No.2 has misconstrued the judgment of this court in writ Petition No.15208 of 2012 and passed the impugned proceedings on grounds which are untenable.

¶57

5.1. Learned senior counsel submitted that initially, the firm was registered in the name and style of 'Hotel Ekasila' on 24.11.1976 with eight partners and subsequenrly, with addition of five more partners, thus, totalling to 13, the firm was registered

¶58

¶59

LNA, J WP.No.3894 of 2015

¶60

¶61

i"l

¶62

under the name and style^{of 'lWs Hotel Ekasila,Warangal' on}

¶63

03.04. I 986, vide Registration^{No.24521I 986.}

¶64

5.2. He further submitted^{that subsequently,the said partnership}

¶65

was dissolved, vide dissolution^{deed dated 12.10.1986and a new} partnership deed was executed on^{the samedate and that the} petitioner produced all the said^{documentsalong with other} relevant documents before^{respondent No.2, but, the latterfailed to} properly appreciate the said^{documents and came to an elroneous} conclusion that the initial^{partnershipfirm registered on 24.11.1976} was not dissolved nor the^{partners have retiredwhich is per se}

¶66

perverse.

¶67

5.3. Learned senior counsel^{further submittedthat respondent} No.2 erred in not appreciating^{the fact that the retired partners,i.e.,} eleven out of thirteen^{partners, including respondentNo.3, were} paid their respective shares of amount^{by way of cheques and as} such, atl the rights of the^{retiredpartners,includingrespondent} No.3, ceased and stood extinguished^{and later, the two partners,} viz.,D.Pratap Reddy and K.Somi^{Reddy, after admitting five more} partners vide partnership agreement^{dated 12.10.1986, have retired} from the partnership firm. Thereupon,^{the said five partners entered}

¶68

¶69

LNA, J trP-No.3894 of 20tS

¶70

rnto partnership agreernent dated 04.04.19g7 and got the firm_ M/s Hotel Ekasila registered with the Registrar of Firms, vide Registration No.3/2006, dared 06.01 .2006.

¶71

5.4. Learned senior counsel further submitted that respondent No.2 failed to consider all the aforesaid documents and the facts put forth by the petitioner and grossly erred in only considering the partners existing as on 24.tr.r976, thereby, cancelling the mutation effected in the name of the petitioner, which is unjust and contrary to the material praced on record and finalry, prayed to allow this Writ Petition.

¶72

6- on the other hand, rearned standing counser for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 on finding that the petitioner failed to produce documents in support of its craim that respondent No.3 and others retired from the partnership-of .Hotel Ekasila,, has rightly observed that the firm-Hotel Ekasila is not dissolved nor the partners retired. He further submitted that under such circumstances, respondent No.2 issued the impugned proceedings cancelling the mutation dated l4.os.20og effected in the name of the petitioner, which cannot be faulted with and warrants no interference by this Court.

*o-

LNA,J WP.No.3894 of 2015

¶77

Learned counsel for respondent No.3, reiterating the contentions advanced by learned standing counsel for respondent No.3, has further submitted that respondent No.2 has passed the impugned proceedings in accordance with the Hyderabad Municipal corporation (Registry of Transfer of ownership of Properties in the Assessment Book) Rules, 1965. He fur.ther submitted that though respondent No.2 afforded opportunity of producing documents to both the parties before him, the petitioner herein failed to produce the relevant documents, i.e., the alleged dissolution deed, the new partnership deed, etc., in support of its claim of retirement of respondent No.3 and others and formation of new partnership firm and hence, respondent No.2 passed the impugned proceedings cancelling the mutation effected in the name of the petitioner, which warrants no interference by this Court as there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned proceedings and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ petition.

¶78

8- During the pendency of the present writ petition, respondent Nos.4 to 6, who are said to be the purchasers of the property of the

¶79

firm-Hotel Ekasila, were impleaded.

LNA, J t{P.No.3894 of 20tS

¶84

Leamed counser for respondent Nos .4 to 6 contended that respondent Nos.4 to 6 have purchased the property, under bona fide belief that trreir vendors and their predecessors-in+itre are absolute owners of the property, by paying valid sale consideration through registered sare deeds and that since the date of the purchase, respondent Nos.4 to 6 are in possession and enjoyment of the said property as absorute owners. He further submitted that the vendors of respondent Nos.4 to 6 have^'submitted a representation to respondent No.2 stating that they have not executed any document retiring from the firm-Hoter Ekasira and that the said firm is not dissolved in accordance with raw, as alleged by the petitioner, and that, acting on the said representation, respondent No.2 issued notice dated 03.05.201r directing the petitioner-firm and its partners to submit all the documents to examine their rights and after considering the same, issued Memo dated 2g.r0.20r1, which was challenged by firing writ petition No.l520g of 2012 and the said writ Petition was disposed of with certain observations and directions to respondent No.2. Leamed counsel further submitted that respondent No.2 in due compliance of the directions of this court trr*s/rit petition No.l520g of 2012 and after affording

¶85

K*_""

¶86

¶87

LNA, J WP.No.3894 of 2015

¶88

t'\

¶89

opportunity of producing the documents to both the parties, passed the impugned proceedings cancelling the mutation, dated 14.05.2008, effected in favour of the petitioner and as such, the writ Petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed.

¶90

This court has given its eamest consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for all the parties and scrupulously perused the entire material placed on record. 1 1. Perusal of the entire material placed on record goes to show that the firm-Hotel Ekasila was registered on 24.il.1976, with eight partners, which is undisputed by both the parties. Later, after joining of five more partners, the said firm was registered under the name and style of M/s Hotel Ekasila on 03.04.196, vide Registration No.2452/1986. [n fact, the name of respondent No.3 was also reflected as one of the partners of the firm-iWs Hotel Ekasila, i.e., the petitioner herein. Subsequently, under dissolution deed dated 12.10.1986, executed between the continuing partnersD.Pratap Reddy and K.Somi Reddy and the retiring partners, who include respondent No.3, the retiring partners were paid amounts towards their respective shares as specified therein. [n fact, in the writ affidavit, the petitioner has given the details of the cheques,

¶91

...;.,!,i-^{..,i*-)*itj{is} .....n...' :..?

¶92

¶93

,1,

¶94

.. ::...;-:: i'i .' ::Jryii,.

¶95

¶96

LNA, J 17P.No.3894 of 20I S

¶97

i.e., cheque number, date, amount payable through it and the bank on which it is drawn, which were issued to the retiring partners. It is stated that respondent No.3 was issued two cheques bearing Nos.520757, 22.1L 1986, and gggl13, dated 2g.l0.l9g for Rs.15,000/- and Rs.3,599.95/-, respectively, drawn on sBI, Industrial Estate Branch, warangal. Respondent No.3 except merely denying the issuance of the said cheques in his favour, has not put forth his case as to flor which purpose the same were issued to him.

¶98

Furthermore, except respondent No.3 none of the other ten partners, who are said to have retired from partnership firm as per the dissolution deed, dared 12.lo.196, have challenged the genuineness of the said document before any forum and no material is placed to that effect by respondeht No.3.

¶99

It is also apt to note that respondent No.3 except asserting that he is not a retired partner, has not disputed his signatures and the contents in the dissolution deed, dated 12.10.19g6, therefore, the genuineness of the dissolution deed stand unrebutted. In lieu of the said dissolution deed, a new partnership deed was entered on the even date, whereunder the remaining continuing members

¶100

)

¶101

¶102

LNA, J ll'P.No.3894 of 2015

¶103

¶104

admitted five more partners, viz., Rama Upendram, Rama Pushpaneela, Rama Veeraswamy, Rama Govardhan and Rama Kishan Prasad and partnership agreement was entered between them. Subsequently, D.Pratap Reddy and K.Somi Reddy retired from the firm, as per the partnership agreement, dated 04.04.1987, and the other five partners continued the business activity in the name and style of 'lWs Hotel Ekasila'. Later, on an application made before respondent No.2, mutation proceedings No.A4l201212006, dated 14.05.2008 were issued in the rlame of the petitioner firm

¶105

Respondent No.3 approached respondent No.2 to cancel the mutation proceedings, dated 14.05.2008, however, respondent No.2 issued memo dated 29.10.2011 directing both the parties to seule the dispute before competent civil Cou'rt since there is dispute regarding ownership and title over the property. At this stage, since respondent No.3 renewed his representation tbr cancetlation of mutation,.the petitioner, on an apprehension that respondent No.3 might influence the authorities to entertain his application, filed Writ Petition No.15208 of 2012, which was disposed of with certain observations as stated supra. In compliance of the order

¶106

¶107

LNA. J lltP.No.3g94 olZdtS

¶108

passed in Writ petition No.l520g of 2012, the impugned proceedings are passed by respondent No.3. 15. The registration of the re-constituted firm-M/s Hotel Ekasila on 03.04.19g6, vide Regisrration No.2452/19g6, is undisputed. Further, as observed earlier, the deed of dissolution dated 12.lO.19g6 remained unchallenged by the partners who retired thereunder, even by respondent No.3. It is arso expricit that the retiring partners were paid their respective shares under the said deed of dissorution. of course, the deed of dissolution is not registered, however, in view of the fact that none of the parties therein have charenged the same before any forum of law, the said deed is binding on the parties therein. The new part,ership firm was registered on 06.01.2006, vide Registration No.3/2006, under the name and style of .M/s Hotel Ekasila,. When the genuineness and validity of ih. a..a of dissolution and new partnership deed, dated 12'10-19g6, are proved and none of the retired partners thereunder have challenged the said documents, mere non_ registration of the deed of dissorution wil not give an adverse inference as to its genuineness and validity. under the above circurnstances, this court hords that respondent No.2 has erred in

¶109

¶110

I.NA, J llP.No.3894 of 2015

¶111

\ \

¶112

observing that in the absence of certified copies of the dissolution of firm duly registered, the claim of the petitioner is unsupported.

¶113

Further, the registration of the petitioner flnn vide registration No.3/2006, dated 06.01 .2006, was placed before respondent No.2. The names of the partners mentioned therein are even reflected in the earlier registration No.2452l1986, dated 03.04.1986. Therefore, it is totally unjust and in fact, not proper lbr respondent No.2 to observe in the impugned proceedings that no documents were placed before him by the petitioner.

¶114

The mutation proceedings, dated 14.05.2008 were issued in favour of the petitioner-IWs Hotel Ekasila based on the firm registration certificate, dated 06.01 .2006.

¶115

For the reasons afore stated, since the validity of the deed of dissolution and new partnership deed dated 12.10.1986 remained unchallenged, the consequential formation of new partnership agreement on 04.04.1987 and its registration on 06.01.2006 in the name and style of 'IWs Hotel Ekasila' is deemed to be true, however, respondent No.2 has failed to appreciate the facts and the sequence of events in proper perspective and erred in coming to

¶116

¶117

LNA, J IltP.No.3894 of 20IS

¶118

conclusion that petitioner failed to prove his craim that respondent

¶119

No.3 and others have retired from the partnership.

¶120

[n the light of the above discussion, anarysis and the reasons assigned therefor, this court is of considered view that respondent No.2 has erred in passing the impugned proceedings.

¶121

20' Accordingry, this writ petition is ailowed and the impugned proceedings No.A2 /30553/2014, dated 08.01.2015 of respondent No.2 are set aside and the matter is remanded to respondent No.2 for fresh adjudication. Respondent No.2 shail issue notice to ail the parties concerned, afford an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶122

2t Miscella,eous petitions pending, if any, sha[ stand closed. No costs

¶123

-'":'--,^*,- , -, . ---That the Rure Nisi has been made Absotute as stated auove .a witness the Hon'bte The cHtEF JUsrtcE sRr APARESH KUMAR stNGH, on this Monday, the Twenty Ninth Day of December, Two Thousand and rwenty Five. /

¶124

¶125

H.S. GOWRTSHAN KAR REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFTCER