IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1464 of 2011(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ S.NAVAS,S/O.SAINULABDEEN, THACHAREPALLATHU VEEDU,CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL CIRCLE,KOLLAM - 691 536. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL POLICE STATION,KOLLAM - 691 536. 4. K.P.JAWAHAR,PALLIKKACHUVATTIL HOUSE, KOLLAI.P.O,CHITHARA,KOLLAM - 691 641. 5. SHEEBA,W/O.K.P.JAWAHAR, PALLIKKACHUVATTIL HOUSE,KOLLAI.P.O,CHITHARA, KOLLAM - 691 641. 6. K.P.MIRZA,PALLIKKACHUVATTIL HOUSE, KOLLAI.P.O,CHITHARA,KOLLAM - 691 641. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R4 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.N.NARAYANAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 1464 of 2011-G ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. Heard. Admitted. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 have been heard. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to the petitioner to possess his property, to enjoy his property and to deter respondents 4 to 6 from interfering with his right of enjoyment of the property and from causing any harm or threat to his life and person. 3. After hearing the learned counsel in detail, bereft of W.P.(C) No. 1464 of 2011 -: 2 :- unnecessary details, the dispute clearly is one regarding the right of the petitioner to keep possession and enjoy the property which he claims to have purchased under Ext.P1 sale deed in the year 2009 from the father of respondents 4 to 6. Respondents 4 to 6 have a contention that their father did not have rights to convey title and possession over the property. Respondents 4 to 6 are undisputedly adjacent property owners also. According to respondents 4 to 6, the property did not belong to the father of respondents 4 to 6 at the time when the document in 2009 was executed. Prior to that, there was an oral gift in favour of the 4th respondent. 4. The crux of the question to be decided in the civil dispute between the parties is as to whether the assignor of the petitioner can validly convey title and possession over the property to the petitioner herein. We do not want to advert to the details of the contentions of both sides; nor express any opinion on the validity and acceptability of the contentions of either. We are informed that respondents 4 to 6 have already gone to the civil court arraying their father - the assignor of the petitioner, as a party. The learned counsel for the petitioner hasten to observe that the petitioner has not been arrayed as a party to that suit. Be that as it may, it is admitted that the W.P.(C) No. 1464 of 2011 -: 3 :- petitioner has not gone to the civil court for the enforcement of his civil rights and respondents 4 to 6, who have gone to the civil court, have so far not been successful in getting any specific directions regarding possession/enjoyment of the property. 5. The internecine dispute between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6 cannot obviously be left to the police for resolution; nor can this Court direct the police to resolve that dispute and afford police protection to the party who, according to the police, is entitled to succeed in such civil dispute. 6. Suffice it to say that parties must seek appropriate directions from the civil court for resolution of the dispute between them and they cannot expect those disputes to be resolved in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. 7. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge