IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28550 of 2011(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. MEERA MOIDEEN, S/O.PEERU MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT T.C.49/577, KALIPPANKULAM, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M.S.A.MARIYAM BEEVI, D/O.MAIMOONATHU BEEVI, T.C.48/441, SWAGATH NAGAR, PARAVANKUNNU, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M.MOHAMMED SAHIR, SUMI, T.C.49/3-1, NEAR VALIAPALLI, MANACAUDU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-9. BY ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 121. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 501. 3. MAHEEN, S/O.PEERUKANNU, C-III, RTTC, KAIMANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 040. 4. NAZEER, S/O.PEERUKANNU, SUHARA COTTAGE, MUTHUMARIAMMAN COIL ROAD, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 501. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.28550/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2436 DATED 8/7/1996 OF BALARAMAPURAM SUBREGISTRY. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 25/9/2003. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 27/7/2011 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ATHIYANNOOR. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF BUIDILNG TAX RECEIPT DATED 30/3/2007. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 12/1/2006 OF THE SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 30/9/2009 OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER ON 22/7/2011. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 1/10/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12/01/2006 OF THE SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT R3(A) COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE ISSUED BY ADVOCATE VENNIKKULAM GEORGE VARGHESE. EXHIBIT R3(B) COPY OF THE RSA FILED BY 3RD RESPONDENT AND OTHERS BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 28550 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioners, who were the defendants/respondents in Ext.P6 appeal before the Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram which was decided in their favour, complain that in spite of Ext.P6 appellate decree declining relief to respondents 3 and 4 on the basis of the finding that property is under the ownership and possession of the petitioners, those respondents trespassed into the property in question and kept the shop room which existed on the property under their lock and key. The grievance voiced is that even though Ext.P8 petition was submitted to the 1st respondent - Sub Inspector of Police, he adopted a lethargic attitude. 2. The party respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit, through which they denied the petitioners' claim that the property in question is under their ownership and possession. Along with the counter affidavit, they produced two documents WPC.No.28550/2011 2 also. It is stated in the counter affidavit that Ext.P6 decree has not become final and a second appeal has been preferred to this court against Ext.P6. To the counter affidavit the petitioners have filed a reply affidavit reiterating the averments in the writ petition. 3. Sri.Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran learned Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions from respondents 1 and 2 would submit that on entertaining Ext.P8 complaint, it was revealed that criminal trespass was committed by respondents 3 and 4. Accordingly, key and the lock which was placed by those respondents on the doors of the building was recovered from the party respondents and the key was handed over to the petitioners. Thus, it is the petitioners who are presently in possession of the property particularly the shop room. 4. Having regard to the extensive submissions which were addressed before us by Sri.J.Harikumar learned counsel for the petitioners and those of Sri.G.Sudheer learned counsel for the contesting respondents and also those of the learned Government pleader , we are of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of issuing the following terms; WPC.No.28550/2011 3 Subject to any decision, which may be taken by this court in the second appeal which is stated to be filed against Ext.P6, the petitioners and the party respondents will maintain status quo as obtaining today in respect of the property in dispute. It will be the obligation of the 2nd respondent - Station House Officer Balaramapuram to ensure that nobody violates the status quo ordered to be maintained as above and that the dispute between the petitioners and the party respondents over the property does not give rise to any law and order situations. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk