IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36176 of 2009(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MARY, AGED 69 YEARS, W/O.OUSEPH, THETTAYIL HOUSE, KARUKUTTY KARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.PAUL K.VARGHESE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY (LAW AND ORDER), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY. 4. JOY, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.ITTUPPU, PYNADATH HOUSE, ANGAMALY KARA, ANGAMALY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.K. PUZHPALATHA, R4 BY MR.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. MR.K.JAYAKUMAR, MR.P.B.KRISHNAN, MR.R.SURAJ KUMAR, SMT.GEETHA P.MENON, MR.P.M.NEELAKANDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.36176/2009-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN MH(OP).NO.22/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 01/07/2009. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN MH(OP).NO.22/2009 DTD. 29/07/2009. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE SUIT AS O.S.NO.48/2008 FILED BY THE R.4. AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND HER SON CLETUS BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, ALUVA DTD. 22/01/2008. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, ALUVA DTD. 30/05/2008. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED IN O.S. NO.60/2008 DTD. 30/01/2008. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S. NO.60/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, DTD. 29/05/2008. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.18729/2009 DTD. 09/07/2009. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.21069/2009 DTD. 04/08/2009. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 DTD. 11/12/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 36176 of 2009 N =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Raman, J. The allegation made in the writ petition that the petitioner's son by name Cletus is alleged to be mentally insane and suppressing this fact, the 4th respondent has executed sale deed in respect of the property owned by Cletus. To cancel the said deed, the petitioner filed MH(OP) No.22 of 2009 before the District Court, North Paravur and the same is pending. According to the petitioner, at the instance of the 4th respondent, two policemen threatened and harassed her and coerced them to vacate the premises and handed over the possession of the building to the 4th respondent. Petition was filed before the 3rd respondent Sub Inspector of Police. There is a specific allegation that on 10- W.P.(C) No. 36176/09 2 12-2009 at 9.30 P.M. about 25 persons came into the property and made damage to the shed therein and brutally assaulted the petitioner's son Cletus. This writ petition is filed seeking necessary police protection in the aforesaid circumstances. 2. At the time of admission, this Court passed an interim protection to the life of the petitioner and his family members. Pursuant to the service of notice to the 4th respondent, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed refuting the allegations. According to the 4th respondent, soon after the sale deed executed in his favour voluntarily by the petitioner's son, though he approached the District Court for appointment of a guardian, that was taken prima facie not being satisfied that the petitioner's son was in no way a person who said to be mentally ill warranting any appointment. It is also stated that the allegation that 25 persons trespassed into the petitioner's property on that night and committed assault is untrue and denied. 3. Having heard both sides and after perusing the W.P.(C) No. 36176/09 3 averments in the writ petition and counter affidavit, we dispose of this writ petition as follows:- 1) The interim protection is only to the life and property of the petitioner and family members. The averments and allegations made in the writ petition are that the petitioner's son is incapacitated and he executed document due to the fraud committed by the 4th respondent. These are all matters to be adjudicated in an appropriate civil court, as such allegations are to be proved by the petitioner. 2) The mere fact that we have granted protection to the life of the petitioner and family members does not mean that the various averments, which are not necessary for th disposal of the case, relate to a disputed question of fact or any way accepted by this Court. Issues are left open. W.P.(C) No. 36176/09 4 3) Interim protection will continue till the fear of the petitioner is abated. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. mn.