IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12981 of 2011(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MUHAMMED SALI, S/O ABDUL MAJEED, A.V.HOUSE, PUTHUSSERIMUKKU, KUDAVOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.PIN-695 001 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.PIN- 695 605 3. SAUDABEEVI, J.S.MANDIRAM, MADANTHYAPACHA, KUDAVOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.695 304 R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. PUSHPALATHA R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts 2/- -2- WP(C)NO.12981/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED 11/12/2009. P2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.19527/2010 DATED ITS 13/07/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R3(A) COPY OF THE ORDER CMP.NO.7977/09 DATED 17/12/2009. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.12981 of 2011-W ***************************** Dated this the 6th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court complaining about the police harassment against him by the 2nd respondent at the instance of the 3rd respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner in respect of an item of property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed executed by the daughter of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is thus in possession of that item of property. Respondent No.3 is unnecessarily causing obstruction to the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner. The 3rd respondent has a case that she had executed a document/gift deed conveying the property to her daughter. She has subsequently filed a suit to revoke the said gift deed. The daughter of the 3rd respondent, according to the 3rd respondent, has eloped with another person abandoning her children also. It is hence that she was constrained to revoke the gift deed. There are several disputes and proceedings between the 3rd respondent and her daughter. Proceedings have been initiated by the 3rd respondent against her daughter, ie. the assignor of the property under Ext.P1. 3. It is unnecessary for us to go into all those disputes. The short grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent is W.P(C) No.12981 of 2011-W 2 unnecessarily and illegally intervening in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. Succumbing to the influence of the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent is compelling and coercing the petitioner to yield to such unnecessary terms. The short prayer is that direction may now be issued to the 2nd respondent not to harass and vex the petitioner at the instance of the 3rd respondent. 4. The 3rd respondent has entered appearance through a counsel. The learned counsel points out that the 3rd respondent has been obliged to initiate proceedings against her daughter. According to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner is only acting at the instance of her daughter. In these circumstances, no directions are liable to be issued, submits the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 5. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that the police shall not intervene in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent or in the civil dispute between the 3rd respondent and her daughter. It is for the parties to seek appropriate orders from the civil court. They must all scrupulously comply with the orders of the civil court and should not indulge in any crime. The 2nd respondent W.P(C) No.12981 of 2011-W 3 undertakes that if they do so, the police shall not intervene in the civil dispute between the parties, submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader that the 2nd respondent shall not intervene in any civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent or between the 3rd respondent and her daughter. Parties shall have to abide by the orders of the civil court and should not indulge in the commission of any crime. If so, the police shall not intervene in any manner, submits the learned Government Pleader. 7. We accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 2nd respondent. We are satisfied that no further and specific directions need be issued. 8. Accepting the submissions of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 2nd respondent, this Writ Petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/ W.P(C) No.12981 of 2011-W 4 W.P(C) No.12981 of 2011-W 5 R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.12981 of 2011-W ***************************** Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2011 ORDER BASANT, J. Heard. Admitted. The learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 and 2. Issue notice to the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays and is accordingly permitted to take out notice to respondent No.3 by special messenger. 2. Verify service and call again on 30.05.2011. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/ W.P(C) No.12981 of 2011-W 6