Aggrieved by the action of the first respondent in mutating the names of respondents 2 and 3 in the municipal records as owners of house bearing No.7 -1-33 at Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, Warangal District, the petitioners filed this Writ Petition.

2. The case of the petitioners is that Mr. Karunakar Reddy - husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 3 purchased the aforesaid property under a registered sale deed and was enjoying the property by paying municipal taxes and as respondents 2 and 3 were trying to interfere with his possession, Karunakar Reddy filed O.S.No.912 of 1985 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Warangal, which 'Nas dismissed for default and so respondents 2 and 3 by taking advantage of that fact, had, after the death of Karunakar Reddy, got their names mutated in the municipal records, even without putting them on notice of their claim to that property, and after coming to know about that fact, they filed an application to delete the names of respondents 2 and 3 in the municipal records and mutate their names as successors to that property after the death of Karunakar Reddy, but the same was rejected by the order impugned, and hence this petition.

3. First respondent filed his counter inter alia alleging that Karunakar Reddy and Koka Komaraiah jointly purchased 800 sq. yards of property under a registered document and divided into plots of 400 Sq. Yards each and that 400 Sq. Yards of site allotted to the share of Karunakar Reddy was again divided among three brothers i.e. Karunakar Reddy and respondents 2 and 3 and thereafter Karunakar Reddy filed O.S.No.912 of 1985 which was dismissed for default. As Karunakar Reddy sold away his share under a notarized document dated 18.1.1990, respondents 2 and 3 applied for mutation before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer by impounding the said document under Section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act levied stamp duty and penalty and so on an application filed by respondents 2 and 3 their names were mutated in the place of Karunakar Reddy and so petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

4. Second respondent filed his counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 inter alia contending that they purchased 133 sq. yards allotted to the share of Karunakar Reddy under an agreement of sale in 1990 and that property was mutated in their names after' the death of Karunakar Reddy as the Revenue Divisional officer, by impounding the agreement of sale, collected stamp duty and penalty under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. Since they were minors by the date of purchase of the land by Karunakar Reddy in 1963, the sale deed was obtained in the name of Karunakar Reddy.

During the family partition in 1979 they agreed to divide that 400 sq. yards into three equal shares. As Karunakar Reddy wanted to perform the marriage of his daughter he sold away his share of 133 sq. Yards to them under an agreement of sale dated 18.1.1990 and paid the consideration payable to Karunakar Reddy. As the petitioners with the help of 10 other persons demolished the compound wall between the houses Cr.No.377 of 2000 was registered under Sections 448 and 427 IPC against the petitioners and so they are not entitled to any relief.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V. Durga Nageswara Rao standing counsel for the first respondent.

There is no representation on behalf of respondents 2 and 3.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that first respondent who has no right to decide the question of title, had without keeping in view the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Registry of the Transfer of Ownership of Properties in the Assessment Book) Rules, 1965 ('1965 Rules'), relating to mutation of names in cases of voluntary transfer by owners, decrees etc, erred in mutating the names of respondents 2 and 3 in the register after the death of Karunakar Reddy even without notice to the petitioners, who are the only leg