IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 9547 of 2008(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JOSEPH, S/O.K.V.BEN, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING T.C.NO.01/0083, PALLITHURA THAIVILAGAM HOUSE, ATTIPRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.VIJAYAKUMAR SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. CHATHARINE GOMAZ, D/O.JOSPIN GOMEZ, AGED 42 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT THYVILAKOM, PALLITHURA COLONY, PALLITHURA ATTIPRA VIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. P.GEORGE, S/O.PATHROSE, TC 89, THAIVILAGAM HOUSE, PALLITHURA P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. LIZZY, W/O.P.GEORGE, THAIVILAGAM HOUSE, PALLITHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ISSAVEL, C/O.P.GEORGE, THAIVILAGAM HOUSE, PALLITHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. ANTO FERNANDEZ, S/O.BENNY FERNANDEZ, THAIVILAGAM HOUSE, PALLITHURA P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. STELLMA BABU, W/O.BABU, THAIVILAGAM HOUSE, PALLITHURA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. CLETUS, C/O.VICTOR FERNANDEZ, THAIVILAGAM HOUSE, PALLITHURA P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WPC 9547/2008 :2: 8. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. THE ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER, SANGUMUGHAM, VALIYATHURA. 10. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THUMBA POLICE STATION. BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR FOR R6 SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY FOR R.2,3,4 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL – R8 TO R10. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. No representation. Dismissed. 29.05.2008. SD/- K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. SD/- M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ ======================================= W.P.(C).No. 9547 OF 2008 ==================== Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J The petitioner claims possession and ownership over 40 cents of land in R.S.No.10/28 in Attipura Village at Thaivilagam, Pallithura (PO). The petitioner submitted that when the 1st respondent trespassed into the said property, he along with his brother filed O.S.No.1504/2004, before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte. The III Additional Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram decreed the suit as evident from Ext.P1. It was a suit for recovery of possession and other consequential reliefs. The learned Munsiff decreed the suit as follows: “Defendant is directed to surrender the possession of plaint B schedule property to the plaintiffs within three months failing which plaintiffs are entitled to recover the possession of B schedule through the process of court. Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover means profit as they have not adduced any evidence. No order as to costs.” W.P.(C).No. 9547 OF 2008 2 . 2. Going by the pleadings, it is not clear whether the petitioner has executed the decree. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree has already been executed and he was put in possession of plaint B schedule property mentioned in Ext.P1. Now he wants to put up a compound wall for the same. But the neighbouring property owners, respondents 1 to 7, are causing obstruction to that. Therefore, he filed Ext.P2 and P3 petitions before the police seeking necessary protection to construct the boundary wall. He also seeks protection to his life. 3. In view of the decision of this Court in Devadasan v. State of Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 739) and Ajayakumar v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 901), police protection cannot be granted for putting up the compound wall. For that petitioner has to move the civil court. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be granted protection to his life. In this writ petition we notice that there is alleged threat to petitioner's life, only when he tries to put up the boundary wall. When he goes around attending to his normal avocation, there is W.P.(C).No. 9547 OF 2008 3 . no threat to his life. Therefore, the prayer for protection to the life cannot be granted. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE bkn/-