IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 16996 of 2010(Y) ------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- LALITHAMMA, AGED 66 YEARS, D/O. LATE SARASWATHY AMMA, PULIMOOTTIL VEEDU, VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.A.ZOHRA SRI.R.S.MADHU SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION, VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. JAGAJEEVAN, SABARMATHY, CHAVADINADA, MANALIMUKKU, VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. REMADEVI, SABARMATHY, CHAVADINADA, MANALIMUKKU, VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS. ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED FOR R2 & 3 SRI.M.ABDUL RASHEED FOR R2 & 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.16996 OF 2010 Y PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN OS.NO.92 OF 2009 OF THE SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.494/2009 IN OS.NO.92/2009. EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF ORDER AND SERVICE DATED 3.6.2009. EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 19.4.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.487 OF VDAMANAPURAM SUB- REGISTRY DATED 27.2.2003. EXT.R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.2377 OF VAMANAPURAM S.R.O. DATED 31.5.1966. EXT.R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS FILED BY RESPONDENTS 2 & 3. EXT.R3(D) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY RESPONDENTS 2 & 3. EXT.R3(E) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 10.3.2010 IN O.S.NO.92/2009 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD BY THE PETITIONER. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO.16996 OF 2010 Y --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd August, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to give adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner to reside in her family residence which is her sole abode. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 giving adequate and effective police protection as requested by the petitioner and take appropriate steps against respondents 2 to 4 warning them not to endanger the petitioner.” WPC.16996/2010 Y 2 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a senior citizen and she is residing in the house situated in RS.No.681/5 of Vamanapuram Village, Venjaramoodu and she has no other residence. She is the co- owner in joint possession of the property and building therein by virtue of the Partition Deed No.24000 of 1122 M.E. There is reference to a Settlement Deed executed in favour of the petitioner and her brothers and sisters. Tharwad house was kept in the common share of the thavazhy. The settlement deed was acted upon and after thirty years, in 1996 a Settlement Deed is executed in reference to even the properties already allotted to the petitioner and her children by the mother incorporating and allotting the Tharwad house and the property where it is situated, kept in common use of thavazhy as per Settlement Deed of 1966, without the knowledge and participation of the petitioner and her children which is as such invalid. The tharwad house is kept for the common use of the thavazhy wherein the petitioner is residing. When respondents 2 to 4 who WPC.16996/2010 Y 3 are joint owners only, started to alienate the property, the petitioner filed a Suit vide Ext.P1. When the defendants tried to commit waste and remove valuable timber from the property, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application as per Ext.P2 seeking temporary prohibitory injunction. Ext.P3 is the order of temporary injunction passed by the Sub Court, Nedumangadu. It is stated that to wreak vengeance, on 10.4.2010 respondents 2 to 4 enjoyed goondas to kill the petitioner and attempted to push her into the well situated in the plaint schedule property. Due to the intervention of local people, the petitioner survived the attempt. Petitioner filed Ext.P4 complaint. Complaining of inaction, petitioner has approached this Court. 3. A Counter Affidavit has been filed by respondents 2 and 3 denying the allegations and stating, inter alia, as follows: It is stated that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands and with malafide intention. Petitioner has no right over the property and the building therein. The building WPC.16996/2010 Y 4 in Survey No.681/5 is owned by the third respondent by virtue of Ext.R3(a) Sale Deed. Petitioner herein got all rights from the ancestral property by Ext.R3(b) partition deed which was made by the petitioner and her mother in the year 1966. Ext.P1 is a vexatious Suit. Ext.R3(c) is produced as the Written Statements filed by respondents 2 and 3. It is stated that the petitioner is residing far away from the property in question. The cause title in Ext.P1 shows that the petitioner is residing at Usha Bhavan, Parakal, Aliyad and it is a different address from the address shown in the Writ Petition. It is further stated that the petitioner has never resided in the building and it is not a tharwad building. Petitioner filed Ext.R3(e) petition before the Sub Court for a mandatory injunction to remove the lock of the building and it is evident that the petitioner is not residing in the building. 4. Petitioner filed a Reply Affidavit. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties including the learned Government Pleader. WPC.16996/2010 Y 5 5. Admittedly, there is a civil suit filed by the petitioner, wherein property rights are in question. Ext.P3 is the interim order passed. We notice that even though the petitioner sought a direction for restraining the defendants from ousting the petitioner, the interim order granted is only that the property shall not be alienated. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 would submit that respondents 2 and 3 have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner. We record the said submission. In the nature of the case, we would think that it is not appropriate for us to interfere in the matter and we relegate the petitioner to pursue her remedy before the civil court. Besides recording the submission of the party respondents that they have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner, we direct that in case the petitioner complains of commission of any cognizable offence by respondents 2 and 3 before the first respondent, the first respondent shall take action in accordance with law on the said complaint. Even in respect of Ext.P4 petition, if the petitioner has complained of WPC.16996/2010 Y 6 commission of any cognizable offence by respondents 2 and 3, effective action shall be taken in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge