IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38311 of 2010(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. MELBI MATHAI, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI, MOOLEKUDIYIL HOUSE, IRINGOLE, PLERUMBAVOOR. 2. SEEJI GEORGE, AGED 36 YEARS, CHILAMBIKODAN HOUSE, VATTEKKATTUPADI, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPAMPADI POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 545. 2. FATHER VARGHESE THEKKEKKARA, THEKKEKKARA HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 542. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.CHARISHMA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN, SRI.SUNIL JACOB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 38311/2010-L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18/12/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO.4906/2010 OF SRO PERUMBAVOOR DATED 15/11/2010. EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 23/12/2010. EXT.R2(c): COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER PERUMBAVOOR DATED 30/12/2010. EXT.R2(d): COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 31/12/2010. EXT.R2(e): COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.284/2010 DATED 22/12/2010. EXT.R2(f): COPY OF THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION DATED 22/12/2010 IN O.S. NO.284/2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.38311 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioners have come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution in their favour to the first respondent to afford police protection for enjoyment of property covered by Ext.P1 document and against the allegedly untoward violent, culpable and contumacious conduct of the second respondent. 2. The petitioners claim to be members of an organization by name Iringole Jacobite Syrian Christian Yuva Jana Sangham. According to the petitioners, the property was purchased in the name of the Sangham by Ext.P1 sale deed in 1963. Thereafter, the property was in the possession of the said Sangham. According to the petitioners, the second respondent has no rights in respect of the said property. The second respondent, according to the petitioners, is a person of questionable antecedents. He wpc No.38311/2010 2 is attempting to physically obstruct the petitioners from enjoyment of the property. He is indulging in violent acts. In these circumstances, the petitioners have come to this Court seeking police protection. 3. Notice was given to the respondents. The learned Government Pleader appears for the first respondent - Sub Inspector of Police. The second respondent is represented by a counsel. 4. The learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the petitioners have no locus whatsoever to represent the Yuva Jana Sangam which had acquired the property under Ext.P1. They do not even claim to be the office bearers of the said Sangham. They only claim to be members of the Sangham. According to the second respondent, the Sangham by a decision of its general body on 7.7.2010 had decided to give the property in favour of Perumbavur Bathel Suloco Jacobite Suriani Cathedrel. The second respondent who is the Parish priest of the said Cathedral had represented the Cathedral in the document. The document, a copy of which is produced as Ext.R2(a) is seen dated 15.11.2010. It is seen executed in favour of the said Church represented by the second respondent and two wpc No.38311/2010 3 other trustees of the church. The gift is made subject to conditions which are enumerated in Ext.R2(a). After execution of the document Ext.R2(a) mutation has been effected in the name of the transferree church. Ext.R2(b) evidences payment of tax by the transferree. Ext.R2(c) Possession Certificate has been issued by the Village Officer, Perumbavur and that certificate dated 30.12.2010 also suggests that the transferree under Ext.R2(a) is in possession of the property. Ext.R2(d) certificate of ownership indicates that the church is the owner of the building in that property. That certificate is issued by the Secretary of the Rayamangalam Grama Panchayat. 5. The learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the Yuva Jana Sangham claiming to act through its Secretary has filed a suit O.A.No.284/2010 before the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavur. Interim orders were also prayed for. No orders have been passed and the suit is pending before the Perumbavur Munsiff's Court. 6. The learned counsel for the second respondent submits that in these circumstances, the petitioners who do not even claim to be the office bearers of the Yuva Jana Sangham cannot be permitted to claim police protection wpc No.38311/2010 4 over the property over which their rights have not been established. According to the second respondent, the said suit is also not filed by the Secretary and a person claiming to be the Secretary has filed this Suit. In any case, the petitioners cannot claim right, title or possession over the property nor can they claim police protection. Before dispute regarding such rights are settled, the attempt to claim police protection cannot be justified. 7. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that a complaint was received from some persons claiming to represent the Sangham. A crime was registered as Crime No.846/2010 of Kuruppampady Police Station. After investigation, on coming to know of Ext.R2(a) gift deed, in the absence of any better material to indicate that the petitioners and such others have rights over the property, steps have not been taken to prosecute the second respondent. At any rate, the police cannot sit in judgment over the right, title and possession of the parties. The parties may be directed to seek appropriate orders from the Civil Court in the pending proceedings or in the proceedings to be initiated hereafter. At any rate, the learned Government Pleader submits that the police cannot wpc No.38311/2010 5 decide the disputed right, title and possession of the parties. 8. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We have gone through Ext.P1 and Ext.P2. We note that nothing is produced to indicate that the petitioners are representatives of the Yuva Jana Sangham or are competent to represent the Yuva Jana Sangham now. We do not intend to express any opinion on the disputed rights of the parties. Suffice it to say that we are satisfied that before the question of rights of the parties is resolved by initiating appropriate proceedings before the competent civil court, no directions under Article 226 are liable to be issued. The police cannot be entrusted with the responsibility of resolving such disputes and therefore, no writ can be issued to the police to decide such disputes and grant protection to one of the contestants. 9. This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/