IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 21379 of 2010(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- ASMA BEEVI, MEENA VILASOM, THOPPIL HOUSE, MANCHALLOOR, PATHANAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAPURAM. 2. ABDUL AZEEZ, UMAIBA MANZIL, MUSLIM STREET, KOTTARAKKARA-691 506. 3. SHAJU, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, UMAIBA MANZIL, MUSLIM STREET, KOTTARAKKARA-691506. 4. SHANU, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, UMAIBA MANZIL, MUSLIM STREET, KOTTARAKKARA-691506. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.K. ABOOBACKER R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 21379 of 2010(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17-03-2009 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN S.A. NO. 293 OF 1997. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 28-6-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : EXT.R2(a) : COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 05.12.1979 OF THE SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA. EXT.R2(b) : COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PATHANAPURAM. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 21379 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim , J. The petitioner seeks relief to grant police protection to the lives of herself, her husband and children and protection for cutting and removing Rubber trees standing in 20 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.484/5/33 of Pathanapuram Village upon which she claims ownership and possession. Averments in the writ petition are to the effect that there existed a dispute with respect to right and interest over the above said property, between the petitioner and her sister Smt.Umaiban Beevi, who is the wife of the 2nd respondent and mother of respondents 3 and 4. It is evident that the petitioner filed a suit as O.S. No.207/1979 before the Munsiff Court, Punalur, seeking prohibitory injunction against her sister to restrain from forceful entry into the property. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner and it was confirmed in appeal filed by her sister. It WPC.No.21379/2010 2 is also stated that the petitioner's sister filed another suit as O.S. No.261/1979 before the same court, seeking mandatory injunction for dispossessing the petitioner from the property. But the said suit was dismissed and the decree was confirmed in appeal also . From Ext.P1 it is further evident that the sister of the petitioner had filed yet another suit as O.S. No.81/1986 before Munsiff Court, Punalur seeking declaration of title over the property in question. But that suit was also dismissed and the matter was carried in second appeal before this court, in S.A. No.293/1997. From Ext.P1 judgment it is evident that the second appeal was withdrawn by the sister of the petitioner reporting that the matter has been settled out of court. 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware about any out of court settlement and that the property is still in her possession . It is also contended that the decree of prohibitory injunction obtained against the petitioner's sister in O.S. No.207/1979 had attained finality. Grievance voiced in this writ petition is that the respondents 2 to 4 are now causing physical obstruction to the free enjoyment of the property by the petitioner and that they WPC.No.21379/2010 3 are preventing the petitioner, from cutting and removing the Rubber trees standing in the property. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, it is contended that the petitioner has no title over the property and that the wife of the 2nd respondent had derived title over the property by virtue of settlement deed No. 4691/1979 dated 5/12/1979 (Ext.R2(a)). Ext.R2(b) is the land tax receipt produced to show that the wife of the 2nd respondent had paid tax with respect to the property during the year 1980 - 81. It is further contended that there was a settlement arrived between the petitioner and her sister and the second appeal was withdrawn on that basis. According to the respondents, as per terms of the settlement both the sisters have decided to share 10 cents each in the property. But the petitioner is not ready and willing to abide by terms of such settlement. However, it is stated that respondents 2 to 4 have never trespassed into the house of the petitioners nor have threatened the petitioner or her family members. 4. It is evident that there existed a dispute regarding right and interest over the property between the sisters. Under WPC.No.21379/2010 4 normal circumstances, this court may not be inclined to grant any direction for police protection in a matter involving property dispute. But in the case at hand, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner had obtained a decree of prohibitory injunction against her sister to the effect of restraining her from interfering in any manner with the property in question. It is also evident that the claim of the petitioner's sister to get title over the property declared was negatived, and the said decree had also attained finality. The respondents 2 to 4 are not in a position to raise claim for any right or interest in the property apart from the right and interest claimed by the petitioner's sister, who is the wife of the 2nd respondent and mother of respondents 3 & 4. That being so, we are of the considered opinion that there is absolutely no manner of right vested on respondents 2 to 4 to cause any hindrance or obstruction to the peaceful enjoyment of the property by the petitioner. We make it clear that we have not arrived at any finding regarding title of the petitioner with respect to the property in question. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition directing the 1st respondent to take effective WPC.No.21379/2010 5 steps to protect the lives of the petitioner, her husband and children , if it is revealed that there is any threat from the side of respondents 2 to 4 or anybody claiming under them. We also direct that, if information is received to the effect that there is obstruction caused to the peaceful enjoyment of the property in question by the petitioner in any manner, effective steps shall be taken to remove such obstructions. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk