Telangana High Court
WP/23344/2003 of Malayala Yashoda, Vs Municipal Corporation of Warangal, on 29 December 2009
R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23344 OF 2003 Date : 29.12.2009 Between: Malayala Yashoda. …… Petitioner And Municipal Corporation of Warangal, through its Commissioner & others. …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23344 OF
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.23344 OF 2003
Date : 29.12.2009
Between:
Malayala Yashoda.
…… Petitioner
And
Municipal Corporation of Warangal, through itsCommissioner & others.
…..Respondents.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDYWRIT PETITION No.23344 OF 2003
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration byway of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of 1[st] respondent-Municipal Corporation on the applications submitted by thepetitioner on 12.05.1982, 21.07.2001, 04.08.2003 and29.08.2003, for transfer of 1/6[th] share in the house propertybearing Door No.12-2-147, situated at Pinnavari Street ofWarangal, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Petitioner claims that her father Late Kalyanam Ramchander was the owner of the house property bearingDoor No.12-2-147, situated at Pinnavari Street in Warangaltown. She filed a suit in O.S.No/334 of 1982 before thePrincipal District Munsif, Warangal, seeking for partition andseparate possession of 1/6[th] share in the said houseproperty. A preliminary decree was passed in the said suiton 15.06.1988. It is the case of the petitioner that after thepreliminary decree, the petitioner and her brother havedivided the property amongst themselves amicably, and shecame into possession of 1/6[th] share in the house of her Latefather. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though shehas filed the representations, dated 12.05.1982, 21.07.2001,04.08.2003 and 29.08.2003, before the 1[st] respondent-Municipal Corporation, seeking for transfer of her name in theAssessment Registers of the Municipality with respect to her1/6[th] share, the same are not being acted upon. Hence, thiswrit petition.
3. The 2[nd] respondent herein has filed counter affidavit,denying the possession of petitioner over the house inquestion. In the counter, it is further denied that there was asettlement and division of property in question, after thepreliminary decree.
4. Though it is claimed by the petitioner that she cameinto possession of 1/6[th] share in the house property by virtueof a settlement after passing of preliminary decree in O.S.No.334 of 1982, but the same is denied by the 2[nd]respondent in the counter affidavit. As much as no finaldecree is passed in the suit, and further, in the absence ofdivision of property, the 1[st] respondent-Corporation cannotact upon the applications filed by the petitioner for transfer of1/6[th] share in her favour. Though it is open for the petitionerto file an application before the Court concerned, for passingof final decree in the suit to the extent of her share as per thepreliminary decree, but before passing of any final decree,she cannot seek for transfer of property in her name.
5. In that view of the matter, keeping it open for thepetitioner to move the competent Court for passing of finaldecree as per her entitlement in terms of the preliminarydecree, and thereafter, to move the authority concerned fortransfer of property, this writ petition is disposed of. Noorder as to costs.
_____________________
R.SUBHASH REDDY, J
29[th] December 2009
N.B:
Furnish C.C. in one week.
(b/o.)
ajr