IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 34188 of 2010(W) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. SAVITHRIAMMA, D/O.KUNJU KUNJAMMA, AGED 77 YEARS, PUTHENVILA VEEDU, THAZHAM MIDLE, CHATHANNOOR P.O., MEENADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. RAJAN.M., S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, AGED 40 YEARS, PUTHENVILA VEEDU, THAZHAM MIDLE, CHATHANNOOR P.O., MEENADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM - 691 001. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 001. 3. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, AGED 53 YEARS, AMBIKA BHAVANAM, PUTHENKULAM P.O., POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM - 691 302. 4. VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, AGED 48 YEARS, SANTHI BHAVANAM, KULATHOOR KONAM P.O., CHIRAKKARA, ULIYANADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 583. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. CHARISHMA R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.34188/2010 W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1245/2010 OF CHATHANOOR POLICE STATION. P2: COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CARD OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DTD. 24/10/2010. P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R3(A): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.220/98 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVUR. R3(B): COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.NO.220/98 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVUR. R3(C): COPY OF THE DECREE IN AS.NO.150/2002ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM. R3(D): COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.221/2010. R3(E): COPY OF THE MAHAZAR AND REPORT IN O.S.NO.221/2010. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.34188 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 11th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the direction issued on 22.02.2011 to produce documents that show residence of the petitioners in the house cannot now be complied with because of the alleged demolition of the building of the petitioners, which admittedly took place prior to 22.02.2011. 2. The petitioners are mother and son. Respondents 3 and 4 are also children of the 1st petitioner and brothers of the 2nd petitioner. It appears that there is a dispute between the petitioners and party respondents 3 to 4 about rights over land and building. Ext.R3(a) is the judgment in a suit for declaration, eviction and realisation of damages filed by the 3rd respondent against the 2nd petitioner and another. That suit was decreed. It is the case of the petitioners that they were in possession of the building in the property. It is alleged that they are forcibly thrown out of possession of the said building on 23.10.2010. The petitioners, in these circumstances, have come to this Court praying for issue of directions to respondents 1 and 2 to afford W.P(C) No.34188 of 2010 police protection to the petitioners. 3. Respondents 3 and 4 have entered appearance. They oppose the prayer in this petition. According to them, the petitioners were never in possession of the building in question. False and frivolous allegations are being raised against respondents 3 and 4. As there was an attempt to trespass into the property covered by Ext.R3(a) judgment, the respondents were constrained to file a suit before the Munsiff Court, Paravur, a copy of the same is produced as Ext.R3(d). Ext.R3(a) judgment has been appealed against. The appellate court, ie. the District Judge, has dismissed the appeal. It is stated that an R.S.A is pending. No interim orders have been obtained in that R.S.A admittedly. According to respondents 3 and 4, in Ext.R3(d) suit, no interim orders have been passed, but a Commissioner was deputed by the Munsiff Court. 4. To sum up, the contention of respondents 3 and 4 is that the petitioners were never in occupation of the building in question; that no incident has taken place as alleged on 23.10.2010 and that the petitioners are not justified in seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution they having lost in Ext.R3(a) suit and in the appeal. W.P(C) No.34188 of 2010 5. The Bench which dealt with the matter on 22.02.2011 accepted the request of the petitioners that the ration card and other material particulars to evidence residence of the petitioners in the building in the property in question on the date of alleged dispossession shall be produced. But now it is submitted that no such documents are available and all those documents have been lost even prior to 22.02.2011. 6. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that according to the police, ie. Respondents 1 and 2, there is no law and order situation. A crime has been registered. But investigation does not support the allegations raised by the petitioners. 7. We must alertly remind ourselves that we are called upon to invoke and exercise our extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The complicated and intricate disputes about the possession cannot be attempted to be resolved in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is not disputed that Ext.R3(a) judgment is in favour of respondents 3 and 4. It is not disputed that parties are already before the civil court (Munsiff Court, Paravur) in Ext.R3 (d). We are certainly of the opinion that the parties must seek W.P(C) No.34188 of 2010 appropriate directions from the civil court either in the pending R.S.A or in the pending suit before the Munsiff Court, Paravur, ie. Ext.R3(d). We are not, in any view of the matter, persuaded to invoke and exercise our extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. We may hasten to observe that we have not intended to express any opinion on the conflicting claims of the petitioners on the one hand and respondents 3 and 4 on the other. They shall be entitled to raise all their contentions in the civil proceedings now pending before various courts. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/