IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 23948 of 2010(P) ------------------------ PETITIONER : --------------------- KUTTAN, S/O.PONNARASSERI APPUKUTTAN, KAKKASSERI DESOM, BRAHMAKULAM AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, P.O. 680104. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SARADHAMANI, W/O.ALLIPPARA SARATH CHANDRAN, VALLASSERIPARAMBU, KAREEKKAD, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN-680104. 2. NIRMALA DEVI, D/O.SARADHAMANI, VALLASSERIPARAMBU, KAREEKKAD, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. PIN-680104. 3. SASIKUMAR, S/O.SARADHAMANI, VALLASSERIPARAMBU, KAREEKKAD, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN-680104. 4. JAYARAJAN, S/O.ALLIPPARA SARATH CHANDRAN VALLASSERIPARAMBU, KAREEKKAD DESOM, GURUVAYOOR AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN-680104. 5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR-01. 6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION, PIN-680101. 7. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION, PIN-680101. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH R3 BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.ANOOP SMT.R.KRISHNA R5 TO R7 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.23948 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th June, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions to respondents 5 to 7 to afford protection to him for his life and property against illegal obstructions that are caused by respondents 1 to 4. 2. According to the petitioner, an item of property was allotted to his wife in a family partition. Respondent No.1 is her sister. The wife of the petitioner assigned the property to the petitioner. After the petitioner became the owner of the property, consequent to that assignment deed by his wife in his favour, there were disputes regarding the petitioner and the first respondent. This obliged the parties to go to the civil court. Ext.P1 is the common judgment rendered by the Munsiff's Court in the said suits. That dispute has now been finally resolved by the judgment dated 3.6.2010 by this Court in RSA No.445 of 2010. In that suit for injunction, the petitioner herein had claimed injunction against trespass by respondent Nos.1 to 4. The present grievance of the petitioner is not that the respondents have trespassed into the property WPC No.23948 of 2010 2 contrary to the decree passed by the civil court, but that the petitioner is being denied access to his property. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if there is violation of the decree which has become final with Ext.P2, the petitioner shall approach the civil court for enforcement of the decree; but the petitioner is being denied access to his property by the respondents. Police protection may be afforded to the petitioner to have access to his property over which indisputably he has rights in the light of Ext.P2 judgment. 3. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 submits that in view of Ext.P2 judgment, respondents 1 to 4 who are parties to the suit cannot obviously deny the right of the petitioner to have access to his property. But the petitioner apprehends that under the guise of getting entry into the property, the petitioner may indulge in objectionable acts. He may attempt to put up a boundary between the property of the petitioner and the first respondent. The boundary dispute has not been resolved by the impugned decree. In these circumstances, the petitioner may not be permitted to arm himself with an order of police protection which he is likely to misuse and WPC No.23948 of 2010 3 misutilise. This in short is the contention. 4. We make it clear that for the enforcement of the decree confirmed by Ext.P2, the petitioner must take action in accordance with law before the Munsiff's Court for violation of the decree. We further observe that a dispute regarding the boundary line to enable the petitioner to put up a compound wall has again got to be resolved by due process of law. But in any case, we are satisfied that the right of the petitioner to have access to his property cannot be disputed or obstructed. To this limited extent, we are satisfied that an order of police protection can be granted in favour of the petitioner. 5. Our attention has been drawn to the history of litigation between the parties. But in any case, we are not satisfied that respondents 1 to 4 have any right to obstruct access of the petitioner to his property covered by Ext.P2 judgment. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 submits that respondents 1 to 4 cannot and have no intention to make any such obstruction against access of the petitioner to his property. We are in these circumstances satisfied that subject to appropriate observations, this petition for police protection can be WPC No.23948 of 2010 4 allowed. 6. In the result, a) This petition is allowed in part. b) Respondents 5 to 7 are directed to afford police protection to the petitioner to ensure that his access to his property covered by Ext.P2 is not obstructed by respondents 1 to 4. 7. We make it clear that if there be any complaint of violation of Ext.P2 decree, that dispute will have to be resolved by initiating appropriate proceedings in execution before the civil court. We further clarify that we have not intended to make any observation about the boundary line separating the property of the petitioner and the first respondent. Any dispute regarding the proposed compound wall will also have to be resolved in accordance with law by initiating proceedings before the civil court. sd/- R.BASANT JUDGE sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/ true copy P.S.TO JUDGE WPC No.23948 of 2010 5 R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.23948 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th May, 2011 ORDER Basant, J. Failure report of the mediator is received. But both counsel submits that parties are making every effort to settle the matter. Result is expected by 1.6.2011, it is submitted. Call on 6.6.2011. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/