IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 302 of 2010(K) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. VARGHESE, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT THACHIL HOUSE, KUTHIATHODE KARA, PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE, PARUR TALUK. 2. THOMAS, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT THACHIL HOUSE, KUTHIATHODE KARA, PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE, PARUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA (RURAL) ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGAMANADU. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGAMANADU. 4. MATHEW, S/O.LONAPPAN, RESIDING AT KOVATTUTHACHIL HOUSE, KUTHIATHODU KARA, PUTHENVELIKKARA, N.PARUR TALUK. 5. ANNIE, W/O.MATHEW, RESIDING AT KOVATTUTHACHIL HOUSE, KUTHIATHODU KARA, PUTHENVELIKKARA, N.PARUR TALUK. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.302 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The first petitioner is stated to be the owner of an extent of 27.625 cents of land of Puthenvelikkara Village, as per sale deed No.127/05 of Sub Registry Office, Chennamangalam and he purchased the property from George, S/o.Lonappan. The second petitioner is his brother. After the death of George, the legal heirs of the transferor, filed a suit for partition and for a declaration alleging that the sale deed in favour of the first petitioner by the deceased was vitiated. That suit was ultimately dismissed and Ext.P4 judgment is produced in evidence thereof. Ext.P4 shows that a preliminary decree was passed for partition in respect of some items of properties. What was thus allowed to be partitioned was Ext.A5 property referred to in Ext.P4 judgment. But according to the petitioners, the property now in question is Ext.A4 property referred to in Ext.P4 judgment, in W.P.(C) No.302 of 2010 2 respect of which the finding rendered by the court below is that Ext.A4 is a valid sale deed executed by George in favour of the 9th defendant for valid consideration. Ext.A4 is a deed of the year 2005. According to the petitioners, despite the fact that the suit was dismissed as against the claim covered by Ext.A4 property and the petitioners are entitled to enjoy the same, party respondents are causing obstruction. Hence, this petition for police protection. 2. The averments on facts shows that though according to the petitioners, first petitioner has purchased the property as per Ext.A4 referred to in Ext.P4, they were not in a position to enjoy the property because of the dispute. In so far as the petitioners have not approached the Civil Court for any remedy, in case there is any obstruction caused in enjoying the property, and in view of lapse of time, it will not be appropriate to grant police protection. For enabling the petitioners to enjoy the property said to have been purchased by them, covered by W.P.(C) No.302 of 2010 3 Ext.A4 sale deed referred to in Ext.P4 judgment, the proper remedy is to approach the Civil Court. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in this case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE nj.