IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 14898 of 2011(J) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 86 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN, OLLEKKATTU HOUSE, THOIKAVU DESOM, KUNDAZHIYOOR AMSOM, VENKIDANGU VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR. 2. SEETHA RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 76 YEARS, W/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, OLLEKKKATTU HOUSE, THOIKAVU DESOM, KUNDAZHIYOOR AMSOM, VENKIDANGU VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THRISSUR RANGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, GURUVAYOOR-680101. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680001. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAVARATTY POLICE STATION, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680506. svs ..............2/-.... ...2... WPC.NO.14898/2011 5. MANOJAN, S/O.OLAKKATTU RAMAKRISHNAN, "LAKSHMI NIVAS", THEKKE SAMOOHAMADAM ROAD, THEKKE NADA, GURUVAYOOR, PRESENTLY RESIDING IN OLLEKKATTU HOUSE, THOIKAVU DESOM, KUNDAZHIYOOR AMSOM, VENKIDANGU VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR-680506. 6. SREENA, W/O.MANOJAN, "LAKSHMI NIVAS", THEKKE SAMOOHAMADAM ROAD, THEKKE NADA, GURUVAYOOR, PRESENTLY RESIDING IN OLLEKKATTU HOUSE, THOIKAVU DESOM, KUNDAZHIYOOR AMSOM, VENKIDANGU VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR-680506. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R5-6 BY SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 14898/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AGAINST THE 1ST PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER REPORT FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 25/07/2005 IN O.S.NO.663/2005. P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10/05/2011. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28/04/2011. P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 28/04/2011. P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 28/04/2011. P7: COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE RATION AUTHORITIES, AS OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.14898 of 2011-J ***************************** Dated this the 24th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioners, an old couple, aged 86 years and 76 years respectively, have come to this Court seeking issue of directions to the police - respondents 1 to 4, to afford protection for them against contumacious, culpable and violent acts on the part of respondents 5 and 6, who are none other than their son and daughter in law. 2. According to the petitioners, the property with residential building which they now occupy belongs to the 1st petitioner exclusively. Respondents 5 and/or 6 have no right over the property. But respondents 5 and 6 are illegally asserting rights over that property. According to respondents 5 and 6, the 5th respondent is a co-owner in respect of the property. The petitioners lament that respondents 5 and 6 are indulging in violent acts against the petitioners. It is, in these circumstances, that police protection is claimed. 3. Respondents 5 and 6 have entered appearance through a counsel. They have a different story to advance. W.P(C) No.14898 of 2011-J 2 According to them, they are in occupation of the residential building along with the petitioners. They have been so in occupation for a long period of time. The petitioners have initiated this proceedings against the respondents with vexatious intent for the reason that the 5th respondent has filed a suit for partition claiming to be a co-owner in occupation of that house and secured an interim order against the 1st petitioner that he should not alienate the property or in any manner interfere with his rights as a co-owner. It is only animosity arising from the filing of that suit, that prompts the petitioners to make such claim for police protection. They are instigated by a sister of the 5th respondent, it is further alleged by respondents 5 and 6. 4. Th dispute is whether the 1st petitioner and the 5th respondent are co-owners in respect of the property. Parties are already before the civil court. We do not think it necessary to enter any specific finding or issue any specific directions, after attempting to resolve that controversy, in this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Parties must be relegated to seek their remedy from the civil court. 5. What survives is only the alleged threat to the life and person of the petitioners. The learned counsel for respondents 5 W.P(C) No.14898 of 2011-J 3 and 6 undertakes that respondents 5 and 6 shall not indulge in any such contumacious conduct against their parents/parents in law. This undertaking may be accepted and proceedings may be closed, submits the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6. 6. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that in the perception of the police officials, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. Notwithstanding the existence of serious civil dispute between them, the learned Government Pleader submits that if respondents 5 and 6 commit any such contumacious and culpable conduct contrary to the undertaking given before this Court, the petitioner can complain to the 4th respondent and thereupon the police shall take appropriate necessary action to avoid any threat to the life or person of the petitioners. 7. We are satisfied that no specific directions are necessary and this petition and this petition can now be closed. 8. In the result: a) We accept the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 that respondents 5 and 6 shall not indulge in any culpable or violent acts against the petitioners; W.P(C) No.14898 of 2011-J 4 b) We record and accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that in the event of any piece of conduct on the part of respondents 5 and 6 contrary to the undertaking, the petitioners can complain before the 4th respondent and thereupon the 4th respondent shall take all such actions as are necessary under law to abate any such threat to the life and person of the petitioners. c) This Writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/