IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 1878 of 2008(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SUDHA DEVI, W/O.P.N.MENON, AGED 56 YEARS, 34/875, ANCHUMANA ROAD, MAMANGALAM, KOCHI. 2. P.NARAYANA MENON, S/O.NARAYANA MENON, AGED 71 YEARS, 34/875, ANCHUMANA ROAD, MAMANGALAM, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AMRUTHAKUMAR, S/O.MADHAVAPANIKKAR, SAUPARNIKA, P.J.ANTONY ROAD, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM. *(RESPONDENT NO.3 DELETED, VIDE ORDER DATED 25.11.08 IN IA NO.14850/08) BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 1878/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DATED 6.3.1976 EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 21.8.2006 IN O.S.NO.717/05 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24.10.2007 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 1.1.2008 MADE BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 1878 OF 2008-W ----------------------------------------- Dated 12th December, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The 1st petitioner owns 45 cents of land in Sy. No.151/3A/1 of Edappally Village and she got it as per Ext.P1 partition deed. The 2nd petitioner is her husband. When the 1st respondent along with his wife tried to trespass into the said property and commit waste there, the 1st petitioner and her father moved the civil court and obtained Ext.P2 judgment, restraining them or their men or agents from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties or causing any damages to the boundaries, boundary trees, fencing or compound wall or interfering with the plaintiffs' possession. But, when the petitioners tried to put up a fencing on the eastern boundary of that property, the 1st respondent obstructed. So, the 1st petitioner filed Ext.P3 representation dated 24.10.2007 before the Circle Inspector of Police, Kalamassery. Again, WPC 1878/08 2 when the petitioners tried to construct compound wall for the property on 27.12.2007, the 1st respondent came there and manhandled the 2nd petitioner. The police was informed and they came and strictly warned the 1st respondent. The petitioners are proposing to put up a compound wall and they apprehend, again the 1st respondent will come and obstruct the work. So, the 1st petitioner filed Ext.P4 petition before the Sub Inspector of Police, Palarivattom, seeking necessary police protection for the construction of the compound wall. But, the police did not extend any help. Hence this Writ Petition, seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. If Ext.P2 judgment and the decree granted based on that judgment are violated by the 1st respondent, the remedy of the petitioners lies not before the Police Station, but before the civil court concerned. The said court can take coercive action against the 1st respondent. He can be put in jail also, if the allegations of the petitioners are found correct. The said court can address the police also, to enforce its orders. Since the police do not have the power or authority to decide the allegation of violation of the injunction order of WPC 1878/08 3 the civil court, we are not justified in issuing any direction to the police to assist the petitioners to put up fencing or compound wall for their property. The civil court has got ample powers to redress the grievance of the petitioners. Further, in view of the decisions of this Court in M.G.Ajayakumar v. State of Kerala [2008(1) KLT 901] and Devadasan v. State of Kerala [2005(3) KLT 739], direction cannot be granted to put up fencing or compound wall on the boundary of the petitioners' property. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners and their right to move the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Nm/