IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 9344 of 2008(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- 1. P. THULASI, W/O.MADHAVA PANICKER, RETIRED HEADMISTRESS, VALLATTIL VEEDU, CHUNAKKARA VADAKKUMMURI, CHUNAKKARA, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. 2. MADHAVA PANICKER, S/O.NARAYANA PANICKER, VALLATTIL VEEDU, CHUNAKKARA VADAKKUMMURI, CHUNAKKARA, MEVELIKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURATHICAD. 5. CHANDRIKA, W/O.LATE PARAMESWARA PANICKER VALLATTIL VEEDU, CHUNAKKARA VADAKKUMMURI, CHUNAKKARA, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. 6. SREEDHARA PANICKE, S/O.KUNJU PILLAI PANICKER, VILAYIL PADINJATTETHIL, VETTIYAR THEKKU, MANKANKUZHY. 7. MADHU, S/O.GANGADHARAN PILLAI, SUMALAYAM CHUNAKKARA VADAMMUMMURI, CHUNAKKARA. 8. BINU,VALLYAYATHU VEEDU, CHUNAKKARA KIZHAKKUMMURI, CHUNAKKARA, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. 9. MOHANAN, S/O.T.K.NARAYKANA PILLAI, MALAYIL, CHUNAKKARA VADAKKUMMURI, CHUNAKKARA, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR FOR R6-9 SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R6-9 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).NO.9344 OF 2008 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH MARKING THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING IN WHICH THE 5TH RESPONDENT IS RESIDING. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF DECREE IN THE SUIT O.S.NO.182/95 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA. EXHIBIT P2(a): COPY OF JUDGMENT IN THE SUIT O.S.NO.182/95 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF ORDER IN O.P.NO.11425/96 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF ORDER IN W.P(C).NO.29024/2003 E OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P5: COPYOF JUDGMENT IN CRL.M.C.NO.3248/07. EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 23.11.2007 WITH RECEIPT. EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF petition BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.18.1.2008 WITH RECEIPT. EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF MEMO SHOWING REFERENCE OF THE COMPLAINTS AND DATES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.HEMA,JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No. 9344 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are husband and wife. Fifth respondent is the first petitioner's sister-in-law. They were residing together in the family house. The first petitioner claims ownership over the said family property, a portion of which is presently occupied by the fifth respondent. The first petitioner has obtained Exhibit P2 decree to recover possession of the said building from the occupation of the fifth respondent. The petitioners submit that the appeal filed by the fifth respondent against Exhibit P2 has been dismissed. While so, the fifth respondent has encroached into the portion of the building presently in the possession of the petitioners. They are driven out and so, they are staying in a rented building. They want to occupy the portion of the building which was earlier in their possession. For that, they have moved the police by filing Exhibits P6, P7 and P8 representations. But they are not rendering any help. Hence, this Writ Petition seeking mainly the following relief: WP(C).9344/08 2 “i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding respondents 1 to 4 to grant police aid and protection to the life and limb of the petitioners and to see that respondents 5 to 9 and their supporters do not trespass into the remaining portion of the tarwad house in which the petitioners are residing and commit crimes.” 2. The dispute between the petitioners and the fifth respondent is a civil dispute regarding the right to possession over a family house. The police cannot adjudicate the rival claims and render protection to the petitioners to re-enter the property. We are concerned in this Writ Petition about the failure of the duty of the police. Therefore, we are not justified in issuing any direction to the police under Article 226 of the Constitution of India invoking its power to issue a writ of mandamus. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners and their right to move the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. It is made clear that the statements made by us in this Writ Petition based on the submissions of the petitioners will not affect the contentions of the party respondents. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.