IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 8185 of 2011(W) ----------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- C.K.GEETHA, D/O.LATE A.C.BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SREEMANDIRAM, VEMOM AMSOM, ARATTUTHARA DESOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. REP. BY HER BROTHER SRI.C.K.RADHAKRISHNAN, (GUARDIAN OF THE PETITIONER BECAUSE SHE IS AN INSANE) SREEMANDIRAM, VEMOM AMSOM, ARATTUTHARA DESOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK,WAYANAD BY ADV. SRI. M.P. ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANANTHAVADY POLICE STATION, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 670 645. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 673 121. 3. MR.K.O.CHACKO, S/O.OUSEPH, KIZHAKKE MANNOOR HOUSE, VEMOM AMSOM, ARATTUTHARA DESOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 670 645. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 8185 of 2011(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO. 83647 DATED 01.01.2011. EXT.P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN RSA 852/07 DATED 15.01.2008. EXT.P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20.01.2011 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24.01.2011 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR ON 08.01.2011. EXT.P7 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT. EXT.P8 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS 10/82 DATED 31.08.2000 OF THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, MANANTHAVADY. EXT.P9 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECREE IN OS 10/82 DATED 31.08.2000 OF THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, MANANTHAVADY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a) : PHOTOCOPY OF DOCUMENT DATED 04/01/2008 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, MANANTHAVADY. EXT.R3(b) : PHOTOCOPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 10/01/2011. EXT.R3(c) : RECEIPT DATED 10/01/2011 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(d) PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED 24/01/2011 SUBMITTED BY SRI. C.K.RADHAKRISHNAN. EXT.R3(e) PHOTOCOPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 12/01/2011 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, MANANTHAVADY VILLAGE. EXT.R3(f) PHOTOCOPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 10/05/2010. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 8185 OF 2011 W ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th May, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 to respondents 1 and 2 to afford protection to the petitioner in respect of 51 cents of land allegedly belonging to her exclusively against any culpable and contumacious action on the part of the third respondent. 2. According to the petitioner this property was allotted to her in a partition deed in 1972. The total extent was 3.25 acres. Her father expired in 1981. The third respondent is an adjacent property owner who has purchased the property from the father of the petitioner. After the death of the father in 1982 a suit for injunction was filed by the third respondent. Later the suit was amended to claim recovery of possession of a portion of 3.25 acres of land measuring 51 cents. That suit was dismissed. Appeal against the same was also dismissed. The regular second appeal before this Court was also dismissed on 15-1-2008. WPC 8185/2011 2 3. The petitioner claims to be of unsound mind. This petition is filed by her through her brother one C.K.Radhakrishnan. According to her after disposal of her earlier proceedings, petitioner's representative went to the property on 10-11-2011. There was illegal obstruction. Complaint was hence made before the police. The police is not taking action. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner through her brother has come to Court now. 4. Notice was served on the respondents. The learned Govt. Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 1 and 2 submits that the disputes between the parties is a pure civil dispute and it is for the parties to approach the civil court for resolution of disputes. Police cannot resolve the civil dispute between the parties, it is submitted. 5. The third respondent has entered appearance. According to the third respondent the petitioner is not of unsound mind. She has executed documents assigning portions of 3.25 acres allotted to her in the partition deed. In these WPC 8185/2011 3 circumstances it is idle to contend that the petitioner is of unsound mind and cannot protect her interests. 6. According to the learned counsel for the third respondent the petitioner is trying to take advantage of the earlier decree to stake claims over properties which do not belong to and are not in the possession of the petitioner. Identity of the property is disputed. According to the petitioner the dispute that now stands is not relating to the property covered by the earlier suit. The property relating to which the present dispute arises is property belonging to one son of the petitioner. Parties may be directed to take resort to the ordinary civil legal process. The petitioner and brother are only attempting to steal a march over the third respondent in the civil disputes between them and the attempt is to get such disputes resolved through the police. In these circumstances this petition may be dismissed submits the learned counsel for the third respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in the original suit filed in 1982 itself the petitioner is represented by WPC 8185/2011 4 her brother. That was done on the application of the third respondent who contended that the petitioner's brother is managing properties on her behalf on account of her mental illness. In any case the fact that a document was executed by the petitioner in 2011 in her own name is not specifically disputed. It is also accepted that her brother has not been appointed by Court as guardian of the property of the petitioner on the assertion that she is a mentally challenged person. 8. Be that as it may, the crucial question that we have to consider the dispute about the identity of the two properties i.e the property presently in dispute and the property covered by O.S.10/1982 earlier between the parties. 9. Having heard both counsel we are certainly of the opinion that such dispute regarding the identity of the property cannot be attempted to be resolved in the present proceedings. That question cannot be left to be decided by the Police. At any rate we think it is absolutely safe to direct the parties to get the dispute resolved by resort to regular civil process. We are not persuaded to issue any directions under Art.226. WPC 8185/2011 5 10. We have carefully not adverted to the precise details of the dispute regarding the identity of the property as we are leaving the parties to approach the Civil Court for resolution of the controversies. This writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. We make it clear that we have not intended to express any opinion on merits regarding that precise dispute. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 8185/2011 6