IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37922 of 2007(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. T.P. AYSHA, W/O. MAMMOOTTY HAJI, AGED 50 YEARS, "RUKSANA MANZIL", A.K.G.NAGAR, MATTANNUR. 2. T.P. RAHUF, S/O. MAMMOOTTY HAJI, AGED 32 YEARS, "RUKSANA MANZIL", A.K.G.NAGAR, MATTANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID, SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER, SRI.T.P.SAJID. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. 2. C.I. OF POLICE, MATTANNUR POLICE STATION. 3. S.I. OF POLICE, MATTANNUR POLICE STATION. 4. D. ABDUL SHUKOOR, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.K.MOIDU HAJI, "SHAHANAS", CANAL ROAD,MATTANNUR 5. SHABEER, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. D.ABDUL SHUKOOR, "SHAHANAS", CANAL ROAD, MATTANNUR. 6. SHAMEEM, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. D.ABDUL SHUKOOR, "SHAHANAS", CANAL ROAD, MATTANNUR. 7. JABBAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. KUNHALI MASTER, "SULAIKHA MANZIL", NEAR SHYNA TALKIES, MATTANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.A. SALIM, ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.37922/2007-M: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DTD. 09/10/1987 THE JOINT PROPERTIES BELONGING TO THE FATHER OF THE MAMMOOTTY HAJI AND RESPONDENT NO.4 AND OTHER LEGAL HEIRS OF K. MOIDEEN HAJI PARTITIONED THE PROPERTY. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE P.2. DTD. 28/11/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 29/11/2007 TO R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CARD RELATING TO THE TREATMENT UNDERGONE BY THE PETITIONER FROM 13/12/2007 TO 15/12/2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CARD RELATING TO THE TREATMENT UNDERGONE BY THE PETITIONER FROM 13/12/2007 TO 15/12/07. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. W.P.(C)NO. 37922 of 2007 DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The first petitioner is the sister in law of the 4th respondent and the second petitioner is her son. There is some property dispute between the first petitioner and the 4th respondent. According to the petitioners, in the family settlement, they got two items of property. Now the 4th respondent wants a portion of one of the items of property allotted to them . Since the first petitioner did not concede to the 4th respondent's demand, he is sending hired muscle men to physically harm her. Such an incident took place in November 2007 and immediately she filed Ext.P2 representation before the Sub Inspector of Police and Ext.P3 representation before the Superintendent of police. But no action has been taken. Recently, the petitioners were manhandled and they sustained injuries. No action has been taken by the police though information was lodged about the W.P.C. 37922/2007 -2- same. So, the petitioners seeking police protection for their lives. 2. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which he submitted that the allegations made against him are absolutely unfounded. He is enjoying the properties allotted to him in the family settlement. He has no intention whatsoever to trespass into the property allotted to the petitioners. It is also submitted that the 4th respondent and others were attacked by the petitioners and they sustained injuries and a crime has been registered against them. It is also submitted that they have no intention whatsoever to attack the petitioners or physically harm them. 3. The learned Government Pleader upon instruction submitted that there is a property dispute between the first petitioner and the 4th respondent and a case and counter case have been registered against both parties based on the information lodged by the respective sides. 4. The civil dispute between the parties have to be settled by the competent civil court. We record the undertaking made on behalf of the 4th respondent and other party respondents W.P.C. 37922/2007 -3- that they have no intention whatsoever to physically harm the petitioners. The petitioners may also follow the same example. If there is any breach of peace reported, the police shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. This order may not be understood as a direction in favour of the petitioners or in favour of the respondents. The writ petition is disposed of as above. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN , JUDGE ks. K.R.UDAYABHANU,J. =================== CRL.A.NO. OF 200 JUDGMENT DATE: ......2006 =====================