← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/13686/2019dismissed no costs

Maripally Mallaiah v. The State Of Telangana, And 3 Others

2019-07-05P Naveen Rao3 pages

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.13686 OF 2019 DATED :05.07.2019 Between :

Maripally Mallaiah S/o.Late Kistaiah, Aged about 27 yrs, OCcu : Labour, R/o.H.No.2-41, Mekaguda Village, Nandigam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

..

Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, (Stamps & Registration) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others.

.. Respondents This court made the following :

- 2 - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.13686 OF 2019 ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 and 2. 2.

According to petitioner land to an extent of Ac.2-00 guntas in Sy.No.858/U, Mekaguda Village, Nandigam Mandal, Mahabubnagar District presently forming part of new Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same by virtue of sale deed. Petitioner claims that his grandfather Maripally Narsimulu died leaving behind his two sons i.e., Maripally Kistaiah-father of petitioner and Maripally Shankaraiah, who is the 3rd respondent herein; according to petitioner there was partition between the two brothers and land to an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas fallen to the share of his father. His father expired in the year 2004 leaving behind petitioner and his sister. Petitioner now alleges that that in the process of verification of revenue records and the records of registering authority, he came to know that on 04.05.

2005 the 3rd respondent executed a deed of conveyance in favour of 4th respondent in respect of land which had fallen to the share of father of petitioner. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a declaration to cancel the sale deed dated 04.05.2005 executed by 3rd respondent in favour of 4th respondent.

3.

Whether the 3rd respondent has valid title to sell the property to 4th respondent are all matters of dispute and such disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in a writ petition.

- 3 - 4.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out civil law remedy as available to him, subject to law of limitation. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 5th July, 2019 Rds