Telangana High Court
WP/27680/2007 of T.Chandrasekhar, Vs The Gudur Municipality, represented by its on 26 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27680 OF 2007 Date: 26.12.2007 Between: T.Chandrasekhar . . .Petitioner AND The Gudur Municipality and another . . .Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27680 OF 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.27680 OF2007
Date: 26.12.2007
Between:T.Chandrasekhar . . .PetitionerAND
The Gudur Municipality and another . . .Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
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:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare theaction of respondent No.1 in mutating the name of respondent No.2 inmunicipal records in place of Anthoti Venkata Subbaiah in respect ofhouse bearing No.2-122 situated in N.R.Pet, Gudur, Nellore District, asillegal, arbitrary and mala fide. The petitioner also sought for adirection to respondent No.1 to replace the name of respondent No.2with his name.
The petitioner claims to have purchased the above mentionedproperty under registered sale deed, dated 07.10.2006 from theoriginal vendor. Respondent No.2 who claimed to have got a gift deedfrom the petitioner’s vendor on 02.05.2007, approached respondentNo.1 municipality seeking mutation of his name and respondent No.1accepted the said request and mutated the name of respondent No.2. Itis this action of respondent No.1, which is questioned in this writpetition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since thepetitioner has purchased the property under a registered sale deed on07.10.2006, which is earlier in point of time than the alleged gift deed,which was purportedly executed on 02.05.2007, respondent No.1ought not to have entertained the request of respondent No.2 andmutated his name in the municipal records.
I have carefully considered the submission of the learnedcounsel for the petitioner, but I am not inclined to accept the same.Whether the gift deed allegedly executed by Sri Anthoti Venkata Subbaiah in favour of respondent No.2 prevails over sale deed, dated07.10.2006 executed by him in favour of the petitioner or not raises adispute, which is purely of civil nature and in my considered opinion,the same is required to be adjudicated by a competent civil Court andthat the writ petition is wholly misconceived.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed giving liberty to thepetitioner to approach the competent civil Court and in the event ofpetitioner succeeding in the civil suit, he is free to approachrespondent No.1 with a request to mutate his name in the municipalrecords.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
26[th] DECEMBER, 2007
kvni