IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 33144 of 2009(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. LEELA BABY, AGED 72, D/O.LATE SUKUMARAN, ULLURUPPIL THODIYIL, SREE NAGAR-28, KADAPPAKADA P.O., KOLLAM. 2. JANAMMA, AGED 69, W/O.ANIRUDHAN, ULLURUPPIL THODIYIL, SREE NAGAR-30, KADAPPAKADA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) SMT.PRINCY XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 3. SAROJINI, AGED 70, VELANTAZHIKATHU VEEDU, KANNIMEL CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA. 4. LEELA MANI, AGED 40, VELANTAZHIKATHU VEEDU, KANNIMEL CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JAIBY PAUL R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.33144/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE WILL NO.11/1979 OF EZHUKONE SRO P2 COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 25/7/2007 P3 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26/10/2008. P4 COPY OF THE ORDER OF SECRETARY KOLLAM CORPORATION DATED 23/9/2009 P5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST& 2ND RESPONDENTS DATED 24/10/2009 WITH POSTAL RECEIPTS. P6 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30/10/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R3(A) COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1441/88, DATED 5/5/88. R3(B) COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.904/2000 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,KOLLAM. R3(C) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN I.A.NO.4101/2000 IN O.S.904/2000 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT,KOLLAM. R3(D) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06/03/2006 IN O.S.904/2000 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT,KOLLAM. R3(E) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION/REMINDER DATED 12/8/09 BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SAKTHIKULANGARA BY SAROJINI. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.33144 of 2009-K ***************************** Dated this the 17th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioners have come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to them to protect their life and property against illegal, contumacious and culpable acts of respondents 3 and 4. 2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the disputes between the petitioners and respondents 3 and 4 can be summarised as follows. The 3rd respondent is the sister of Sukumaran, the father of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner and her other siblings claim the property in question as legatees under a will of the said Sukumaran; whereas the 3rd respondent claims the said property on the strength of a subsequent sale deed in her favour by the said Sukumaran. The parties have already gone to the civil court raising the same dispute. 3. In the meantime, Ext.P4 notice has been received by the 1st petitioner from the Secretary of the Kollam Municipal W.P(C) No.33144 of 2009-K 2 Corporation. The petitioner has been asked to demolish a structure in the property. The petitioner is not being permitted to do so by respondents 3 and 4. Police protection may be afforded to her. This in short is the request. 4. This petition was filed as early as on 17.11.2009. Notice was ordered. Subsequently no orders have been passed. The last posting was on 05.01.2010. Thereafter the parties did not think it necessary to bring up the matter. 5. The Registry has now listed the matter for disposal. The petitioner presses for favourable orders in her prayer for police protection. We have heard both counsel. We are satisfied that this is not a fit case where the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 can, need or deserves to be invoked. The dispute is a purely civil dispute about the right over her property and the choice is between the will executed in favour of the 1st petitioner and others and the sale deed executed in favour of the 3rd respondent. That dispute, we are satisfied, cannot be resolved by the police or by us by issuing directions to the police in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Parties, if they want the disputes to be resolved authentically, must seek order/direction from the civil court. W.P(C) No.33144 of 2009-K 3 6. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/