Court clarified validity of partnership dissolution and subsequent registrations, emphasizing the necessity of considering all relevant documents in property ownership disputes.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.A2/30553/2014, dated 08.01.2015, issued by respondent No.2 as unsustainable and unjust, and consequently, to set aside the same.

2. 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.

3. Heard Sri Vedula Venkatramana, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel-on- record 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.

4. The facts in nut-shell that lead to filing of the present Writ Petition are that earlier, the petitioner herein, on an apprehension that respondent No.3 herein would get his name mutated in place of the petitioner by pressurizing respondent No.2 herein, filed Writ Petition No.15208 of 2012 and this Court vide order dated 26.08.2014, disposed of the said Writ Petition with a direction 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.

5. 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.

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 subsequently, with addition of five more partners, thus, totalling to 13, the firm was registered under the name and style of ‘M/s Hotel Ekasila, Warangal’ on 03.04.1986, vide Registration No.2452/1986.

5.2. He further submitted that subsequently, the said partnership was dissolved, vide dissolution deed dated 12.10.1986 and a new partnership deed was executed on the same date and that the petitioner produced all the said documents along with other relevant documents before respondent No.2, but, the latter failed to properly appreciate the said documents and came to an erroneous conclusion that the initial partnership firm registered on 24.11.1976 was not dissolved nor the partners have retired which is per se perverse.

5.3. Learned senior counsel further submitted that respondent No.2 erred in not appreciating the fact that the retired partners, i.e., eleven out of thirteen partners, including respondent No.3, were paid their respective shares of amount by way of cheques and as such, all the rights of the retired partners, including respondent 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 into partnership agreement dated 04.04.1987 and got the firm- M/s Hotel Ekasila registered with the Registrar of Firms, vide Registration No.3/2006, dated 06.01.2006.

5.4. Learned senior counsel further submit