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. 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 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 24.11.1976, thereby, cancelling the mutation effected in the name of the petitioner, which is unjust and contrary to the material placed on record and finally, prayed to allow this Writ Petition. 6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 on finding that the petitioner failed to produce documents in support of its claim 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. 6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 on finding that the petitioner failed to produce documents in support of its claim 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 14.05.2008 effected in the name of the petitioner, which cannot be faulted with and warrants no interference by this Court. 7. 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 further 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. 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 firm-Hotel Ekasila, were impleaded. 9. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 contended that respondent Nos.4 to 6 have purchased the property, under bona fide belief that their vendors and their predecessors-in-title are absolute owners of the property, by paying valid sale consideration through registered sale deeds and that since the date of the purchase, respondent Nos.4 to 6 are in possession and enjoyment of the said property as absolute 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-Hotel Ekasila and that the said firm is not dissolved in accordance with law, as alleged by the petitioner, and that, acting on the said representation, respondent No.2 issued notice dated 03.05.2011 directing the petitioner-firm and its partners to submit all the documents to examine their rights and after considering the same, issued Memo dated 29.10.2011, which was challenged by filing Writ Petition No.15208 of 2012 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of with certain observations and directions to respondent No.2. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.2 in due compliance of the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No.15208 of 2012 and after affording 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. 10. This Court has given its earnest consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for all the parties and scrupulously perused the entire material placed on record. 11. Perusal of the entire material placed on record goes to show that the firm-Hotel Ekasila was registered on 24.11.1976, 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 03.04.186, vide Registration No.2452/1986. In fact, the name of respondent No.3 was also reflected as one of the partners of the firm-M/s Hotel Ekasila, i.e., the petitioner herein. Subsequently, under dissolution deed dated 12.10.1986, executed between the continuing partners- D.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. In fact, in the writ affidavit, the petitioner has given the details of the cheques, 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, 22.11.1986, and 889113, dated 28.10.198 for Rs.15,000/- and Rs.3,599.95/-, respectively, drawn on SBI, Industrial Estate Branch, Warangal. It is stated that respondent No.3 was issued two cheques bearing Nos.520757, 22.11.1986, and 889113, dated 28.10.198 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 for which purpose the same were issued to him. 12. 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, dated 12.10.196, have challenged the genuineness of the said document before any forum and no material is placed to that effect by respondent No.3. 13. 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 12.10.1986, 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 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 ‘M/s Hotel Ekasila’. Later, on an application made before respondent No.2, mutation proceedings No.A4/2012/2006, dated 14.05.2008 were issued in the name of the petitioner firm. 14. 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 settle the dispute before competent civil Court since there is dispute regarding ownership and title over the property. At this stage, since respondent No.3 renewed his representation for cancellation 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 passed in Writ Petition No.15208 of 2012, the impugned proceedings are passed by respondent No.3. 15. The registration of the re-constituted firm-M/s Hotel Ekasila on 03.04.1986, vide Registration No.2452/1986, is undisputed. Further, as observed earlier, the deed of dissolution dated 12.10.1986 remained unchallenged by the partners who retired thereunder, even by respondent No.3. In compliance of the order passed in Writ Petition No.15208 of 2012, the impugned proceedings are passed by respondent No.3. 15. The registration of the re-constituted firm-M/s Hotel Ekasila on 03.04.1986, vide Registration No.2452/1986, is undisputed. Further, as observed earlier, the deed of dissolution dated 12.10.1986 remained unchallenged by the partners who retired thereunder, even by respondent No.3. It is also explicit that the retiring partners were paid their respective shares under the said deed of dissolution. Of course, the deed of dissolution is not registered, however, in view of the fact that none of the parties therein have challenged the same before any forum of law, the said deed is binding on the parties therein. The new partnership 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 the deed of dissolution and new partnership deed, dated 12.10.1986, are proved and none of the retired partners thereunder have challenged the said documents, mere non- registration of the deed of dissolution will not give an adverse inference as to its genuineness and validity. Under the above circumstances, this Court holds that respondent No.2 has erred in observing that in the absence of certified copies of the dissolution of firm duly registered, the claim of the petitioner is unsupported. 16. Further, the registration of the petitioner firm 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.2452/1986, dated 03.04.1986. Therefore, it is totally unjust and in fact, not proper for respondent No.2 to observe in the impugned proceedings that no documents were placed before him by the petitioner. 17. The mutation proceedings, dated 14.05.2008 were issued in favour of the petitioner-M/s Hotel Ekasila based on the firm registration certificate, dated 06.01.2006. 18. 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 ‘M/s 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 conclusion that petitioner failed to prove his claim that respondent No.3 and others have retired from the partnership. 19. 19. In the light of the above discussion, analysis and the reasons assigned therefor, this Court is of considered view that respondent No.2 has erred in passing the impugned proceedings. 20. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed 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 shall issue notice to all the parties concerned, afford an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 21. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.