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 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37958 of 2007(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ * P.M.MATHEW, S/O. UMMEN MATHEW, JIJO VILLA, MALLEN KUZHA, KALANJOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. (THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS “P.M.VARGHESE” AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO.412/2008 DATED 16.1.2008) BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOODAL POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THOMAS MATHEW, EDAPADATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, PADAM P.O., KALANJOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SASI GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 37958/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT GIVEN TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY P.M.VARGHESE DATED 29.9.2006. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.10.2007. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 14.12.2007. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 16.2.2005 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO SET ASIDE THE EX PARTE DECREE. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION IN O.S.73/05 OF THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR PROSECUTION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 2A WITH AFFIDAVIT. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R4(1) – TRUE COPY OF INJUNCTION ORDER IN I.A.382/06 DT. 22.4.05 OF DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.R4(2) TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.472/05 IN O.S.NO.73/05 DT. 9.9.05 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.R4(3) - TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S.NO.73/05 DTD. 5.4.05 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.R4(4) – TRUE COPY OF CRIME NO.129/06 DTD. 4.10.06 OF KOODAL POLICE STATION AGAINST THE PETITIONER. EXT.R4(5) – TRUE COPIES OF COMPLAINTS LODGED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND FAMILY AGAINST THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE S.I. OF POLICE, C.I. OF POLICE, S.P., ETC. ON VARIOUS DATES. EXT.R4(6) – TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.534/06 IN O.S.73/05 DT. 17.3.06 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR VIOLATION OF INJUNCTION ORDER UNDER O.39 RULE 2A, C.P.C. EXT.R4(7) – TRUE COPY OF PROOF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR PROSECUTING THE PETITIONER, BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Writ Petition (C) No.37958 of 2007-R -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner claims possession and ownership over 1.03 acres of land. He submits, his father assigned the said property to him under Ext.P4. The 4th respondent is his brother. Recently, the said respondent started causing obstruction to the tapping of the rubber, standing in that property. Based on the information lodged by the petitioner, the Police have registered a crime against the 4th respondent. The said respondent along with others filed OS No.73/05 before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta against the petitioner seeking to injunct him from tapping the rubber and also seeking a declaration of their right over the property. They also sought partition. The suit was dismissed for default. So, the petitioner seeks police protection for tapping the rubber trees in the above said plot of land. 2. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which it is submitted WPC 37958/07 2 that Ext.P4 is a forged document and though the suit was dismissed for default, the application for restoration filed by the plaintiffs therein including the 4th respondent, is pending. According to the 4th respondent, the property covered by Ext.P4 was always under the possession of him and other brothers. On a fine morning, the petitioner came up with a forged document concerning the property. On the strength of it, the petitioner has never got possession over the property. Now, he is trying to trespass into the property and to take usufructs from there. The learned Government Pleader upon instruction submitted that it is a family dispute between brothers. 3. Having regard to the nature of the dispute between the parties, the Police cannot interfere in this and render protection to the one side or the other. The parties have to move the competent civil court and get appropriate orders. The civil court has also the power to address the police to render assistance in executing its orders. Having regard to the facts of the case, we decline jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of both sides and WPC 37958/07 3 their right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE 16.01.2008 P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE sta