IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13895 of 2011(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SREEKUMARAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, RESIDING AT 'ARCHANA', KARUMKULAM DESOM, KARUMKULAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 121. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA POLICE STATION, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 502. 3. SASIKUMAR, S/O.DIVAKARAN NAIR, SREEVILASOM BUNGALOW, MEKKOLLA DESOM, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE- 695 502. 4. PRATHAPA KUMAR, S/O.SADASIVAN NAIR, PRATHAPA MANDIRAM, MEKKOLLA DESOM, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE- 695 502, PARASSALA, TVM. DIST., R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M. CHARISMA, R3 & R4 BY ADVS. SRI.R.GOPAN, SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.13895/2011-J: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.866/1986 DTD. 09/07/1986. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD. 29/03/1988. EXT.P.2.A: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD. 20/01/2000. EXT.P.2.B: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD. 08/08/06. EXT.P.2.C: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD. 03/02/2011. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 03/03/1994 IN O.S. NO. 460/1986. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 16/01/2009 IN A.S. NO. 147/1995. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 11/03/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.13895 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th June, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to afford protection to the life and property of the petitioner against illegal, violent and culpable acts on the part of respondents 3 and 4. 2. According to the petitioner, he has obtained the property in question from one Visalakshi Amma as per Ext.P1 sale deed. That sale deed was challenged by some of the legal heirs of deceased Visalakshi Amma. By Ext.P3 judgment, the said suit was dismissed. Against Ext.P3, an appeal was filed before this Court and the said appeal has been dismissed on 16.1.2009 under Ext.P4. According to the petitioner, no further proceedings are pending. Respondent No.3 who is by name a party to Exts.P3 and P4 and respondent No.4, son of the second defendant in that suit are now raising illegal contumacious, culpable WPC No.13895/2011 2 and violent obstruction to the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner. The Civil Court has already decided the issues and respondents 3 and 4 are not entitled in any manner to raise any objection or obstruction to the enjoyment of the property or to the life or person of the petitioner. The police are guilty of inaction and it is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court seeking directions. 3. Respondents 3 and 4 have entered appearance. The learned counsel submits that it is true that Ext.P3 suit was dismissed. The appeal before this Court has also been dismissed subsequently. But according to respondents 3 and 4, subsequently an MJC has been filed to set aside Ext.P4 dismissal. That MJC has not been numbered so far. Admittedly, the appeal was disposed on 16.1.2009. We do in these circumstances find merit in the grievance raised by the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 1 and 2 submits that the parties have been advised and warned strictly to comply with the order of the civil court. If there is any conduct disregarding the final orders of the civil court and any WPC No.13895/2011 3 attempt is made to pose any threat to the life or person of the petitioner, police shall afford requisite protection, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. We are satisfied in these circumstances that this writ petition can be allowed and appropriate directions can be issued. a) This writ petition is allowed. b) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford protection to the property of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 and also for the life and person of the petitioner against any contumacious or violent acts on the part of respondents 3 and 4. c) We make it clear that this order of protection is subject to any further orders that may be passed by the court in Ext.P4 appeal. sd/- R.BASANT JUDGE sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/ true copy P.S.TO JUDGE