IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5047 of 2011(E) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- MUHAMMED,S/O.KUNHALIKUTTY,PALEMPADIYAM AMBALAPARAMBIL HOUSE,MANKADA PALLIPURAM, KOTTILANGADI VILLAGE,POST VALLIKKAPATTA, PIN:679 324,PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI POLICE STATION,MANJERI, PIN – 676 121. * (CORRECTED). *THE WORDS “MANJERI POLICE STATION” APPEARING IN THE CAUSE TITLE IS SUBSTITUTED WITH “MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION” AS PER ORDER DATED 01/03/11 IN I.A. 3083/11. 2. AFZATH,D/O.PALEMPADIYAN AMBALAPARAMBIL MUHAMMAD, RESIDING AT KALATHINGA,QUARTERS, BANKUMPADI,POST PADIJATTUMMURI,PIN:676 506, VIA. KOOTILANGADI,PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. CHARISMA, R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.5047/2011-E: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.1315/1 OF 1983 OF MAKKARAPARAMBA SRO DTD. 04/04/1983. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE AUCTION SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PERINTHALMANNA CO- OPERTIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, PERINTHALMANNA DTD. 01/01/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 5047 OF 2011 E ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th March, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. Petitioner has come to this Court raising a grievance that the first respondent police officer is unnecessarily intervening in the dispute between the petitioner and his daughter the second respondent and is compelling him to execute a document in favour of the second respondent. It is prayed that directions may in these circumstances be issued under Art.226 of the Constitution. 2. The second respondent has entered appearance. The second respondent submits that allegations are totally false. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is only acting at the behest of a son of the petitioner and they want to deprive and deny the second respondent of rights which are available to her under law. The second respondent does not want the petitioner to execute any document in her favour. There is no question of her prevailing upon the first respondent to compel and coerce WPC 5047/2011 2 the petitioner to execute any document in her favour. Allegations are made without any bonafides. This petition may in these circumstances be dismissed submits the learned counsel for the second respondent. 3. The learned Govt. Pleader after taking instruction from the first respondent submits that the first respondent has no intention to intervene in the dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent. Police shall not intervene in any such dispute existing or to arise in future between the petitioner and the second respondent. It is up to them to settle their disputes in accordance with law. 4. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are satisfied that the submission of the learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Govt. Pleader can be accepted and proceedings in this writ petition can be closed. We need only mention that we do not perceive any merit in the allegations of harassment and vexation against the petitioner by the first respondent at the instance of the second respondent WPC 5047/2011 3 referred above. 5. This petition in these circumstances is dismissed with the above observations. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 5047/2011 4