IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33230 of 2009(W) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. ROBINSON, S/O.CHELLAYYAN NADAR, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHERUVILA VEEDU, AALOTTUVILA DESOM, MALAYINKIL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. VIJAYAMMA, D/O.CHELLAYYAN NADAR, AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHERUVILA VEEDU, AALOTTUVILA DESOM, MALAYINKIL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. GLORY BAI, D/O.CHELLAYYAN NADAR, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHERUVILA VEEDU, AALOTTUVILA DESOM, MALAYINKIL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ALBERT @ ROBERT, S/O.CHELLAYYAN NADAR, AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHERUVILA VEEDU, AALOTTUVILA DESOM, MALAYINKIL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. RETNA BAI, D/O.CHELLAYYAN NADAR, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHERUVILA VEEDU, AALOTTUVILA DESOM, MALAYINKIL VILLAGE, BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. YANG FEW, S/O.GOMATHY, PARAYILKONATHU MELE VEEDU, KIZHUNADU MURI, KALLYAM, VATTAPPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.P.(C) NO.33230/2009 2. BAROSTER @ PODIYAN, S/O.GOMATHY, PARAYILKONATHU MELE VEEDU, KIZHUNADU MURI, KALLAYAM, VATTAPPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KANTHAVU @ KANTHI,PARAYILKONATHU MELE VEEDU, KIZHUNADU MURI, KALLAYAM, VATTAPPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. MOBLE, PARAYILKONATHU MELE VEEDU, KIZHUNADU MURI, KALLYAM, VATTAPPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPRURAM. 5. RASSLUM, PARAYILKONATHU MELE VEEDU, KIZHUNADU MURI, KALLYAM, VATTAPPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. GOMATHY, PARAYILKONATHU MELE VEEDU, KIZHUNADU MURI, KALLYAM, VATTAPPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. NANDINI, PARAYILKONATHU MELE VEEDU, KIZHUNADU MURI, KALLYAM, VATTAPPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. BYULA, KALIYILVILA VEEDU, MARUTHOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. ANURA, VAANKUZHI, MECHERI VEEDU, VENKODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. JOY, S/O.SEBASTIAN NADAR, VANKUZHI MECHERY VEEDU, VENCODE, VATTAPPARA VILLAGE. 11. S.I. OF POLICE, VATTAPPARA POLICE, STATION, TRIVANDRUM. 12. C.I.OF POLICE, VENJARAMOODU CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 13. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RURAL, TRIVANDRUM. R1 – R9 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR. SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN(MEDIATOR) R11 TO R13 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.33230/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE DEED OF MORTGAGE BEARING NO.2724/66 DT.D 16.4.1966. P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.D 22.12.1984 IN OS. 349/1980 OF THE PRINCIPLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEDUMANGAD. P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 19.3.2005 IN OS. 349/1990 OF THE PRINCIPLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEDUMANGAD. P4:- COPY OF THE DECREE DTD. 19..2005 IN OS.349/1990 OF THE PRINCIPLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEDUMANGAD. P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 10.7.2008 IN AS. 10/2006 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, NEDUMANGAD. P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 17.9.08 IN RSA. 826/2008 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P7:- COPY OF THE DELIVERY LIST DTD. 2.2.09. P8:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 6.7.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VATTAPPARA. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 20.6.2009 IN IA. 826/2009 IN OS. 130/2009. P10:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. 130/2009 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEDUMANGAD. P11:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINANT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER'S BEFORE THE 11TH RESPONDENT. P12:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 21.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE 11TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 33230 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. In this writ petition under Article 226 the relief which the petitioners seek is police protection for the enjoyment of the property which was delivered over to them under Ext.P7 delivery note without any obstruction or hindrance from the part of the party respondents in this writ petition. We find no ground to issue police protection directions in respect of the properties when suits are pending between the parties in respect of the properties. But we find some merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that frivolous suits have been filed one after another and after a long drawn out full fledged legal battle which culminated in Ext.P7 delivery report. Suits presently pending are OS.No.135/09 and 130/09 on the files of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Nedumangad. In one of those suits OS.No.135/09 the court initially passed an interim order in favour of the respondents. But Ext.P13 will show the history of WP(C).33230/2011 2 the legal battle between the parties culminating in Ext.P7. The learned Subordinate Judge vacated the interim order by passing Ext.P13 interim order. Learned counsel for the petitioners asserted before us that as of now there are no interim orders in currency against the petitioners. The above submission is not disputed by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 2. The prayer in this writ petition is that respondents 11 to 13 police officers be directed to initiate action on Exts.P8 and P11 representations filed by the petitioners seeking police protection. The stand taken by the respondents expressed before us through the learned Government Pleader is that since civil suits are pending between the parties, the police are unable to take any action. But we are of the view that this is a case where civil disputes between the parties had been adjudicated fully and finally resulting in Ext.P7 delivery report . The maintainability of the subsequent suits OS.No.135/09 and 130/09 is doubtful. As already stated that the claim that Ext.P13 has become final and the further claim that as of now there are no interim orders against the petitioners is not disputed. 3. Under the above circumstances we are inclined to WP(C).33230/2011 3 grant relief to the petitioners. The 11th respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P11 immediately and conduct further enquiries into the same. He should summon respondents 1 to 10 to the police station and direct them to produce civil court orders interim or otherwise if any in their favour in respect of the property in question. If no orders are produced by them, he shall ensure by taking appropriate steps that there is no disturbance or obstruction from the part of respondents 1 to 10 in the matter of the petitioners enjoying the properties delivered over to them in Ext.P7 after a long drawn out full fledged legal battle. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).33230/2011 4