IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5868 of 2011(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.S.THYAGARAJAN, S/O.LATE SANKARAN ACHARY, THATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PRAKKULAM P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.C.K.PRASAD SRI.T.S.ANURAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA, KOLLAM - 691501. 3. JAYAKRISHNAN, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM - 691001. 4. JIMSTIL, ADDL.SUB INSPECTOR, ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM - 691001. 5. LILLI @ KRISHNAMMA, RESIDING AT MYDHILI NIVAS, PRAKKULAM P.O., KOLLAM - 691602. 6. MANOJ, RESIDING AT MYDHILI NIVAS, PRAKKULAM P.O., KOLLAM - 691602. -: 2 :- 7. MYDHILI MYDHILI NIVAS, PRAKKULAM P.O., KOLLAM - 691602. 8. T.S.DANDAPANI, MYDHILI NIVAS, PRAKKULAM P.O., KOLLAM - 691602. BY G.P. SRI. T.K. PIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5868 of 2011-G ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner claims to be in possession of a residence in a residential property. His brother - the 8th respondent, is admittedly one of the co-owners in respect of that property. The petitioner has a grievance that the 8th respondent is living with the 5th respondent - a woman with whom there is no proper marriage. The 6th respondent is said to be the son of the 5th respondent. According to the petitioner, respondents 5, 6 and 8 are attempting to throw the petitioner out from the house which he is in occupation as a co-owner. The petitioner seeks directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 - police officials, who, according to him, are guilty of W.P.(C) No.5868 of 2011 -: 2 :- inaction though the petitioner has aired his grievance in Exts.P1 and P2 complaints before them. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail. The dispute is about the conflicting claims of the petitioner and the 8th respondent who are both co-owners in respect of the residential building. Such dispute, we are satisfied, cannot be resolved by resort to proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. The petitioner/co-owner must certainly initiate proceedings before the civil court if there is unjustified attempt on the part of another co-owner to exclude him from his alleged possession of the co-ownership property. That dispute is purely beyond the ken of the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution. We do not want to express any opinion on the conflicting claims of the petitioner and the 8th respondent. With the observation that the petitioner must seek appropriate orders from the civil court to protect his alleged right which is being infringed, we dismiss this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner complains that respondents 1 and 2 police officials are compelling the petitioner to go out of the house. We need only mention that the dispute deserves to be resolved by the civil court and police should not W.P.(C) No.5868 of 2011 -: 3 :- interfere in the civil dispute between the parties. Needless to say, this observation will not in any way fetter the rights of the police to take action if any criminal offence is committed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge