IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7559 of 2011(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ CHERAPURATH BASHEER, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMED, PILAKANDY HOUSE, PILAKKOOL, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR.670001. 2. THE S.I.OF POLICE, KATHIROOR POLICE STATION, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 670002. 3. PONNAMBILATH PARAPURAVAN RIYAS, KOTTAYAM AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 670 691. 4. PONNAMBILATH PARAPLURAVAN ABDUL KAHADER, KOTTAYAM AMSOM DSESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 670 691. 5. PONNAMBILATH PARAPURAVAN ADHAVI, KOTTAYAM AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 670 691. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R3- R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN R3- R5 BY ADV. SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.7559/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE DECREE DTD. 23.12.1986 IN OS. 224/1982 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOOTHUPARAMBA. P2:- COPY OF THE EXECUTION WARRANT AND THE ORDER THEREIN IN EP. 666/1996 IN OS.224/1982 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOOTHUPARAMBA. P3:- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD. 18.8.2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. P4:- COPY OF THE EP. NO.322/2005 IN OS. 224/1982 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOOTHUPARAMBA. P5:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DTD. 23.11.2009 FILED BY THE CONTESTING RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE COURT BELOW. P6:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 17.2.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 5.3.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JDUGE tss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.7559 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to the petitioner for the peaceful and uninterrupted enjoyment of property belonging to him relating to which he had obtained Ext.P1 decree. 2. According to the petitioner, his predecessor in interest has filed a civil suit against the mother of the third, fourth and fifth respondents. That suit was for fixation of boundary and injunction. That suit was decreed in 1986. Ext.P1 is the decree passed. The decree was put into execution. Execution Petition was filed, boundary was fixed and Ext.P2 report of the Amin was submitted to Court and accepted by the court. 3. Long after, the petitioner purchased the property under Ext.R3(a) sale deed in 2010 from his predecessor. He later filed an application under Order XXI Rule 32 for WPC No.7559/2011 2 violation of Ext.P1 decree. That petition was closed accepting Ext.P5 affidavit filed by the defendants in the suit undertaking not to trespass into the property. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that even now the petitioner is being obstructed from enjoyment of the property within the boundary fixed as per Ext.P2. His complaint to the police did not evoke any response. He has hence come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226. 5. Respondents 3 to 5 have entered appearance. According to them, there are serious disputes regarding the property. They contend that even under Ext.P2, the petitioner's predecessor did not have possession over the property in question. An unoccupied incomplete building is shown to be situated on either side of the boundary as per Ext.P2. In these circumstances, counsel submits that respondents 3, 4 and 5 have very valid contentions to be urged and the decree passed long earlier (Ext.P1 is dated 23.12.1986) should not in these circumstances persuade the court to grant police protection to the petitioner without giving the respondents an opportunity to advance all their contentions before the civil court. WPC No.7559/2011 3 6. We have considered the submissions made. We have perused the relevant documents including Ext.P2. We are conscious of the fact that Ext.P5 affidavit was also filed by the defendants in the suit. But having considered all the relevant circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner must be directed to approach the civil court for enforcement of the decree. We are not persuaded to agree that any directions under Article 226 can need or deserve to be issued in favour of the petitioner. Though there is a claim for protection of life of the petitioner, in the circumstances of the case, we do not perceive any threat to the life of the petitioner sans the property dispute between the parties. 7. This petition is in these circumstances dismissed. But we may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this writ petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to seek appropriate relief from the civil court. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/