IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 17109 of 2009(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- KUNHIMOHAMMED, S/O. MOIDEEN, RESIDING AT KALLAN HOUSE, P.O.THALAKADATHUR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676 103. BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLENGODE POLICE STATION, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLENGODE POLICE STATION, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. BAIJU, S/O. CHAMIKUTTY ALIAS MANI, 4. CHANDRIKA, W/O. CHAMIKUTTY ALIAS MANI, (RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE RESIDING AT KIZHAKKE PARAMBU, NENMENI, KOLLENGODE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.) R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.CHARISMA R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs WP(C).No. 17109/2009(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 28/06/2007. P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. NO.149/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF CHITTUR DATED 24/07/2008. P3: COPY OF THE SALE DEED (DOCUMENT NO.1285/2009-S.R.O., KOLLENGODE) DATED 05/05/2009. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'STO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 05/06/2009. P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 05/06/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.17109 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to the petitioner against culpable and violent conduct on the part of respondents 3 and 4 against the petitioner. 2. Respondent No.3 is the son of respondent No.4. At a time when respondent No.3 was a minor, the fourth respondent had allegedly executed a document in favour of one Kunhimoideen as the guardian of the third respondent. The third respondent after attaining majority did not accept the said transfer deed and he claimed partition of the property over which he allegedly had rights. The suit filed by the third respondent after his attainment of majority was dismissed by the civil court. After the said judgment became final, the petitioner allegedly obtained the property from the earlier WPC No.17109/2009 2 transferee, i.e.Kunhimoideen. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3, notwithstanding the dismissal of the suit, was attempting to illegally obstruct the petitioner from the enjoyment of his rights under the transfer deed obtained from the said Kunhimoideen. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was admitted on 19.6.2009. On 20.8.2009, the petition came up for hearing. There was a direction to the police to ensure that law and order is maintained. That interim order remains in force even now. On 13.10.2009, the case was adjourned with the order 'Post when moved again'. 3. The Registry has listed the matter now for hearing and the petitioner prays that the interim order may now be made absolute. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the application. The learned counsel submits that against the decision of the trial court, an appeal has been preferred along with an application to condone the delay. That appeal is pending before the appellate court. In these circumstances, no directions are liable to be issued WPC No.17109/2009 3 now, submits the learned counsel for the third respondent. The learned counsel for the third respondent submits that the third respondent is a physically ill person and he will not be in a position to raise any physical objection to the enjoyment of the property by the earlier transferee Kunhimoideen or the petitioner herein. The third respondent intends only to pursue the remedies available to him under law. He has no intention of taking law in his own hands and indulging in any culpable or violent acts against the petitioner herein. In these circumstances, it is submitted that there is no necessity to issue any directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the contrary submits that it is only after the filing of this writ petition that the third respondent has chosen to file an appeal before the appellate court with a petition to condone the hopeless delay exceeding three years in filing the appeal. At any rate, the petitioner has no objection against the third respondent claiming whatever reliefs are available to him under law, but the third respondent may not be permitted to take law in his own hands and WPC No.17109/2009 4 interfere with the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner. Without and before getting interim orders from the appellate court, the third respondent may not be permitted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property by the petitioner, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The learned Government Pleader submits that the police are complying with the interim orders. The Police do not perceive any threat to the person or property of the petitioner. If there be any such threat to the person or property of the petitioner, the Police shall take necessary action. The parties shall have to comply with the order of the civil court now and if there is any action in derogation of the order of the civil court,necessary action shall be taken by the Police,submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. Needless to say, it is for the third respondent to seek appropriate directions in the pending appeal against the transferee Kunhimoideen or the petitioner. We accept the submission of the learned counsel that the third respondent shall not indulge in contumacious, culpable or violent acts against the petitioner. We accept the WPC No.17109/2009 5 submission of the learned Government Pleader that without any directions from the Civil court, the third respondent shall not be permitted to interfere with the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner. We are satisfied that no further directions are necessary in the matter. 7. This writ petition is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/