IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 902 of 2008(G) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ JALAJAKUMARI, W/O.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, AGED 48 YEARS, PAZHAVEEDU, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 3. PRADEEP, SREEKALA NILAYAM, GANDHI NAGAR, PAZHAVEEDU, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU G.P.SRI. SALIM P.A THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.NO.902/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF INJUNCTION ORDER DTD 17.7.07 IN IA.NO.2802/07 IN OS.544/07. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE ORDER D TD 17.11.2007 IN I.A.NO.2802/07 IN OS.544/07. EXT.P3 COPY OF IA.NO.3264/07 IN OS.544/07. EXT.P4 COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD 15..11.07 MADE BEFORE R1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXTR3(A) COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DTD 15.11.07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA IN IA.NO.3265/07. /true copy/ cl K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.P(C).NO.902 OF 2008-G -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioner and her husband claim possession and ownership of 25 cents of land. Out of the 25 cents, 5 cents belong to the petitioner, 15 cents belong to her husband and the remaining 5 cents belonged to one Mr. Parameswaran Nair, which was alloted to him under a partition which took place in 1978. Thereafter he never visited the property and it was in the possession of the petitioner and her husband uninterruptedly since 1978. Therefore, Mr. Parameswaran Nair lost his title over the property by adverse possession and limitation. Recently, the said Mr. Parameswaran Nair assigned his right over the said property to the 3rd respondent herein. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent along with Mr. Parameswaran Nair and his son tried to trespass into the property. The compound wall constructed by the petitioner was demolished. Therefore, the petitioner and her husband moved the Munsiff Court, Alappuzha by filing O.S.544/2007. They obtained WPC.NO.902/2008 . 2 Ext.P1 interim order, by which the defendants therein, who are respectively the 3rd respondent, son of Mr. Parameswaran Nair and Parameswaran Nair, were restrained from demolishing any structures available in plaint schedule property Item Nos.1 and 2 until further orders. They were also restrained from committing any waste or mischief in plaint schedule property item No.3 until further orders. But, in violation of the interim order, the 3rd respondent is entering into the property and threatening the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has moved the civil court for prosecuting the defendants for the violation of the injunction. The said application is pending before the civil court. No orders have been passed on that application. Therefore, she along with her husband moved the District Superintendent of police by filing Ext.P4 petition claiming protection to her life and property and also for protection to her family members. Alleging that the police have not taken any action, this writ petition is filed. 2. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegation of the petitioner regarding the 5 cents of property purchased by her from Mr. Parameswaran Nair. He also submitted that he has filed Ext.R3(a) objection to the I.A. filed by the WPC.NO.902/2008 . 3 plaintiffs for prosecution for the alleged violation of the injunction order. 3. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for protection of her life and that of her family members. 4. We notice that, at present there is only an ad interim order in favour of the petitioner. The I.A for injunction is yet to be heard finally. Further, the petitioner has moved the Munsiff Court alleging violation of the injunction order and the matter is pending before the civil court. In view of the above fact, we feel that the police have no role to play in this dispute at present. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent is threatening the life of the petitioner and her husband. But the petitioner faces threatening or obstruction only when she visits the disputed property. In view of the above position, it is not proper for this Court to direct the police to order protection to her, so that she can enter the disputed property. WPC.NO.902/2008 . 4 In the result, having regard to the facts of the case, we are of the view that this is not a fit case to order police protection. Accordingly, it is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and her right to pursue the remedies before the appropriate forum. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl WPC.NO.902/2008 . 5