IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12489 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.R.AJUKUMAR, S/O.VELAYUDHAN NADAR, ROSAMMA MANDIRAM, PUTHUSSERIMEAKKUMKARA, THAMALAM, POOJAPPURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.MOHANAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARAMANA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 039. 2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 039. 3. SREEKALA, D/O.VALSALAKUMARI, MALAVILAPUTHENVEETTIL, MACHEL, KULANGARAKONAM, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 039. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 12489 of 2011-I ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 - both police officers, to afford protection for the life of the petitioner against illegal acts on the part the 3rd respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is the wife of his deceased brother. There were disputes between the deceased brother and the 3rd respondent and the deceased brother had allegedly executed a Will bequeathing the property to the petitioner and others. He had disinherited his wife - the 3rd respondent as per the Will, it is submitted. The 3rd respondent against the terms of the Will is asserting rights over the property of her deceased husband. She is indulging in objectionable acts against the petitioner. It is, in these circumstances, that directions for police protection are claimed. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We are not persuaded to admit this writ petition. The dispute is evidently relating to the validity of a Will executed by the deceased brother of the petitioner who has allegedly disinherited W.P.(C) No. 12489 of 2011 -: 2 :- his wife - the 3rd respondent. We are of the opinion that the police cannot be clothed with authority to decide that dispute about the validity of the Will; nor can we in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution for police protection go into that question about the validity of the Will. Parties must approach the civil court and get their disputes resolved in accordance with law. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is threat to life of the petitioner and therefore directions may be issued to afford protection for the life of the petitioner. As we perceive, the dispute is only regarding the right to property and there is no independent threat to life of the petitioner. Resolution of the dispute regarding the property is the crucial task. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that no direction regarding protection for life need also be issued. 5. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. We may hasten to observe that the petitioner's right to approach the civil court for resolution of the dispute regarding property shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this petition. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge