IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13059 of 2011(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. KUTHIRAKKAL LATHA, D/O. SREEDEVI, AGED 40 YEARS, TEACHER, CURRENTLY RESIDING AT MAYUR VIHAR, DELHI-91. 2. LEENA, D/O.SREEDEVI, AGED 36,CURATOR, CURRENTLY RESIDING AT KUTHIRAKKAL HOUSE, MANGALORE-1,PETITIONERS 1 & 2 ARE PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT RAMANTHALI AMSOM AND KUNNARU DESOM, P.O.KUNNARU AND THEY ARE REPRESENTED THROUGH THEIR BY P/A.HOLDER & FATHER MUTTIL KUNHAMBU,S/O.CHIRUTHAYI,AGED 71,RETD.COLONEL,RES: AT KARANTHAD,RAMANTHALI AMSOM,KUNNARU DESOM. 3. MUTTIL KUNHAMBU, S/O. CHIRUTHAYI, AGED 71 YEARS, RETD COLONEL, RESIDING AT KARANTHAD RAMANTHALI AMSOM, KUNNARU DESOM, P.O.KUNNARU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V .RAMAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYANUR – 670 307. 2. SHERIN RAJ, S/O. RAJAN, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, KARANTHAD, RAMANTHALI AMSOM, KUNNARU DESOM, P.O.KUNNARU, KANNUR DISTRICT – 670 307. 3. RAMANI, W/O. MUTTIL RAJAN, AGED 40 YEARS, KARANTHAD, RAMANTHALI AMSOM, KUNNARU DESOM, P.O.KUNNARU, VIA-PAYYANUR – 670 307. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA, R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.13059/2011-F: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DEED OF POWER OF ATTORNEY DTD. 15/07/2008 EXECUTED BY THE P.1. AND ATTESTED BY A NOTARY PUBLIC. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REGD. DEED OF POWER OF ATTORNEY NO.100 OF 2008, S.R.O., PAZHAYANGADI EXECUTED BY THE P.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 30/03/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANUR IN O.S. NO. 16/2010. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPORT AND PLAN DTD. 12/03/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN O.S. NO. 16/2010. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPORT AND SKETCH DTD. 01/10/2010 FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C).NO.21938/2010. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 31/01/2011 IN W.P.(C).NO.21938/2010. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT DTD. 02/05/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE P.3. BEFORE THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 13/11/2000 IN O.S. 372/1996 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANUR. EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 24/11/2009 IN R.S.A. NO.753/2009 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 13059 of 2011-F ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the daughters of the 3rd petitioner. They are residing out side the State of Kerala. The 3rd petitioner/ father is a retired military personnel aged 71 years. They have come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions to the 1st respondent to afford police protection against the culpable and contumacious acts on the part of respondents 2 and 3 - a son and mother who own adjacent properties to the property of petitioners 1 and 2. 2. There has been a long history of litigation. The petitioners have now secured an order of injunction upholding their right of way through a pathway in the property of the father/husband of respondents 2 and 3. The civil court has granted relief to the petitioners. The petitioners do not hence seek any relief in respect of the property from this Court now. But according to them, respondents 2 and 3 are threatening and intimidating the 3rd petitioner. He is not being permitted to enter the locality at all. It is, in these circumstances, that the W.P.(C) No. 13059 of 2011 -: 2 :- petitioners have come to this Court. Protection is claimed for the 3rd petitioner alone; petitioners 1 and 2 being not available in the State now. 3. Respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearance. It is submitted that the allegations are totally false. The 3rd respondent does not reside in the adjacent property. The 2nd respondent has already gone abroad. There is no intention whatsoever for respondents 2 and 3 to indulge in any culpable and contumacious acts against the petitioners. It is true that the first court has passed an order against respondents 2 and 3; but an appeal is already filed. Respondents 2 and 3 and their father/ husband shall strictly comply with the orders of the civil court. They have no intention whatsoever to cause any obstruction or threat to the life and person of the petitioners. This undertaking may be recorded and proceedings may be closed, submits the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 4. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that there are civil disputes between the parties. Parties have been strictly directed to comply with the orders of the civil court and get their disputes resolved/settled. The police shall ensure that there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioners. In the perception of the police W.P.(C) No. 13059 of 2011 -: 3 :- officials, there is no such threat in existence now. If there be any culpable or contumacious acts on the part of respondents 2 and 3 against the petitioners, they shall be at liberty to complain to the 1st respondent who shall thereupon take necessary action in accordance with law, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submits that the 2nd respondent was to go abroad. The attempt of the 3rd petitioner by filing a complaint before the police and this petition is only to somehow vex and harass respondents 2 and 3 and to ensure that the 2nd respondent is not able to go abroad to take up his employment. 6. Having considered all the relevant inputs, we agree with the learned Government Pleader that there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioners now. We accept the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 that respondents 2 and 3 shall not indulge in any culpable or contumacious acts against the petitioners. We further accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 1st respondent that appropriate action shall be taken if there be any genuine complaint of such illegal and culpable conduct of the part of respondents 2 and 3. Regarding the property, we are satisfied W.P.(C) No. 13059 of 2011 -: 4 :- that no specific directions need be issued. Parties must comply with the order of the civil court or seek remedies before the civil court. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that this writ petition can be dismissed accepting the above submissions/undertakings. 7. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge