THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.20942 of 2009 Date: 29.10.2009 Between: Paturi Venkatrao Chowdary R/o.Muramanda Village, Kadiyam Mandal East Godavari District and another. .... PETITIONERS AND The Superintendent of Police Kakinada, East Godavari District and others. ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners approached this Court and filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 and 3 in interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the House property bearing D.No.4-138 situated at Muramanda Village, Kadiyam Mandal, East Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. The second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. According to the petitioners, they are in possession of the above said property. Respondents 4 and 5, who are none other than the parents of the first petitioner, and who are also staying separately in the said house, at the instance of the sister of the first petitioner filed O.S.No.523 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry seeking cancellation of registered gift deeds executed in favour of the first petitioner in 2004 and 2006 in respect of certain immovable properties. The grievance of the petitioners is that at the instance of respondents 4 and 5, respondents 2 and 3 namely the Station House Officer and the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police of Kadiyam Police Station respectively are interfering with their peaceful possession of the above said property. Respondents 4 and 5 filed a detailed counter-affidavit stating that the petitioners have no right whatsoever over the property in question and that it is only on the basis of a complaint given by respondents 4 and 5, the police interfered in the dispute between them. It is further stated that under the guise of the interim order dated 25.09.2009 obtained by them, the petitioners entered into their house illegally. The petitioners filed a detailed reply affidavit, denying the above said allegations. Heard both sides. Apparently, the relationship between the first petitioner and fourth respondent is that of son and father, and the sort of litigation is unexpected and not desirable. As it is the contention of the petitioners that respondents 1 to 3, without recourse to law, are interfering with their peaceful possession of the said property, respondents 1 to 3 are hereby directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in any manner, without following due process of law. If respondents 4 and 5 approach respondents 1 to 3 and give a complaint, they can initiate action against the petitioners, after following due process of law. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J Date: 29.10.2009 Note: Furnish CC in two days B/o. va