IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 20093 of 2011(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THITHUMMU, W/O. ABOOBACKER, ALIKKAL PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAKODE POST, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.BHASKARAN, DR..V.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.P.S.HARIHARAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 688 001. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 688 001. 3. RAMLA, D/O. ABOOBACKER, ALIKKAL PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, RESIDING NEAR SHAMLA PALACE, KARUKAPPUTHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 689 412. R1 &R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.20093/2011 J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 21/01/1955. P2: COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 9/06/2011. P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.13/07/2011. P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 16/07/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20093 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. The petitioner who is a very old lady, has approached this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 claiming protection for her life and protection against compulsion in the matter of assigning of her property in favour of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent is none other than the petitioner's daughter. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is threatening her and is compelling her to assign her property in her favour and the 3rd respondent has all the blessings of the 1st respondent. Eventhough the petitioner filed Ext.P4 complaint before the 2nd respondent, the same was never enquired into. On considering the writ petition for admission, we on 28.7.2011 directed the learned Government Pleader to seek instructions from 1st respondent and 2nd respondent 2 W.P.(C) No.20093 of 2011 regarding the correctness of the allegations in the writ petition. Today, the learned Government Pleader Mr.T.K.Vipindas submitted that the allegations are not correct. There is no compulsion from the police to assign the petitioner's property to the 3rd respondent. The enquiry revealed that there is no law and order situation resulting from the dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. As it was brought out that the nature of the dispute is civil, the parties were advised to approach the civil court. Strong exemption by Mr.P.Bhaskaran learned counsel for the petitioner to the stand taken by the learned Government Pleader. According to Mr.Bhaskaran, no enquiry was conducted by the police on Ext.P4. The police never came to the petitioner nor was the petitioner called to the police station. The petitioner is under constant threat to her life. Unless this Court intervenes, the petitioner will be compelled to assign her property against her wishes, to the 3rd respondent, who is residing at a distance of 15 km. 2. Despite service of notice from this Court, the 3rd 3 W.P.(C) No.20093 of 2011 respondent has not come forward to deny the averments in the writ petition. Thus the averments and the allegations in the writ petition stand established against the 3rd respondent by non-traverse. The petitioner is a very old woman. Admittedly, the property in question belongs to her. It is not disputed that the 3rd respondent is residing elsewhere. We feel that the apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that there is danger to her life from the 3rd respondent, despite the 3rd respondent being her own daughter, is real to a certain extent. We are of the view that, neither the police or anybody else has right to compel the petitioner to assign her property to 3rd respondent or anybody else. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition issuing the following directions:- 1. If any fresh complaint is received from the petitioner to the 1st respondent regarding threat to her life or property from the part of the 3rd respondent or anybody under the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent shall conduct an 4 W.P.(C) No.20093 of 2011 immediate enquiry and will afford requisite protection to the life and property of the petitioner on the basis of the facts revealed in the enquiry. 2. There will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 not to intervene in any dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent over the 3rd respondent's request to have the petitioner's property assigned to her. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/