IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 36909 of 2007(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.C.VARGHESE, MANAPPURATHU VEEDU, VETTIPPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.DIPU.R RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RANNI. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RANNI. 5. M.C.MATHEW, MANAPPURATHU VEEDU, UTHIMOODU, RANNI VILLAGE, RANNI. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI. SALIM P.M. R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S. NAMPOOTHIRY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) 36909/07 Appendix Petitioner's Exts: Ext.P1 true copy of the judgment dated 14.11.2007 in WP(C) 33596 of 2007. Ext.P2. P2(a), P2(b) and P2(c) respectively: The true copies of the complaints dated 5.8.2006, 16.3.2007, 14.7.2007 and 31.7.2007 filed before the police authorities. Ext.P3 true copy of the complaint dated 7.6.2006 submitted by the petitioner's son filed before the Chief Secretary, Kerala State through the Consulate of India, New York. Ext.P4 true copy of the complaint dated 21.11.2007 submitted by the petitioner before the police authorities. Ext.P5 true copy of the complaint dated 27.11.2007 submitted by the petitioner before the District Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta. Ext.P6 true copy of the representation dated 7.12.2007 submitted by the petitioner before respondents 1 to 4. 5th Respondent's Exts: Ext.R5(a) true copy of the power of attorney. Ext.R5(b) true copy of the settlement deed. Ext.R5(c) true copy of the complaint filed before the District Collector. Ext.R5(d) true copy of the report of the Village Officer. Ext.R5(e) true copy of the compromise petition in OS 65 of 1996. Ext.R5(f) true copy of the Compromise Petition in OS 71 of 1996. WP(C) 36909/20078 2 Ext.R5(g) true copy of the complaint in OS 111/05 Ext.R5(h) true copy of the complaint filed before the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court in CMP 3534 of 2007. K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ======================== W.P(C).No.36909 of 2007 ======================== Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner and the fifth respondent are brothers. A partition took place in their family and the properties have been partitioned between them with life interest for the mother. But the properties have not been demarcated. So, the civil suits for demarcation filed by the petitioner and the fifth respondent are pending before the competent court. 2. While so, when the petitioner visited his property, the fifth respondent caused obstruction to the petitioner and in this regard two criminal cases have been registered against the fifth respondent. Against the alleged threat of the fifth respondent, the petitioner seeks protection to his life and also to his property. 3. The fifth respondent denies the allegations. According to him, the petitioner trespassed into his residential building and outraged the modesty of his wife and he has also threatened to WP(C) 36909/07 -: 2 :- harm him. The petitioner cut and removed valuable trees standing in his property. On the basis of the complaint filed by him two criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions, submitted that the fifth respondent is a law abiding citizen and the allegations against him appear to be not correct. The real reason for the dispute between the parties is the non- demarcation of the boundaries of the respective shares of the brothers. 4. Having regard to the nature of the dispute, we find that there is no role for the police to play in this case. Needless to say, if any cognizable offence is committed, the police will take appropriate action against the offender. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for fixing the boundaries as ordered by the civil court, the Advocate Commissioner is visiting the property on 12.1.2008 and the petitioner wants to accompany the Advocate Commissioner. He apprehends that the fifth respondent may cause obstruction. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent undertakes that the fifth respondent will not cause any obstruction to the petitioner, if he visits the property WP(C) 36909/07 -: 3 :- accompanying the Advocate Commissioner. This submission is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of as above. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 10/1