IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1115 of 2011(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- JAWAHAR K.P. , FATHIMA MANZIL, KOLLAYIL, MADATHARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL – 691 536. 2. THAJUDEEN, PRAE-3 (B) H.NO.OT-1197, NETTAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 606. 3. ANZAR, ANZAR MANZIL, THALAVARAMBU, MANKODU P.O, CHITHRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 691 559. 4. JENIMON, PILIKIUZHI VILA VEEDU, KARICHIRA, MANKODU P.O.,CHITHARA,KOLLAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.1115 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of directions to the 1st respondent to afford police protection to the petitioner against the contumacious, culpable and violent acts of respondents 2 to 4. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of an item of property. He claims to be in possession of the same. It is his claim that his father had “executed” an oral gift to him. Absolutely no material is placed before Court to indicate that the petitioner has title or possession over the said item of property. It is true that the petitioner had come before this Court earlier with another application complaining of police harassment and that petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment. Ext.P1 can only reveal that there was an attempt of reconciliation between the father of the petitioner, under whom the petitioner claims, and the petitioner regarding property disputes. As to what positive action has been taken in pursuance of Ext.P1, there are absolutely no indications or material. W.P(C) No.1115 of 2011 2 3. Now the petitioner has come to this Court complaint against respondents 2 to 4, who, according to him, are claiming rights under “some one”. The identity of that “some one” is not revealed to the Court The petitioner wants protection against acts of respondents 2 to 4 which are likely to infringe his property rights over the property allegedly gifted by his father to him and consequent threat to life and his person when he attempts to defend such infringement. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail. The conclusion appears to be inevitable that the dispute is really about the right, title and possession over the property in question. Though the petitioner conveniently states that he does not know the person under whom respondents 2 to 4 claim, he accepts that they claim under someone who is asserting rights. It is significant that the petitioner does not say that they are not claiming under his father. 5. We have heard the counsel in detail. We are certainly convinced that such a dispute about the title and possession cannot be attempted to be resolved by this Court by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. W.P(C) No.1115 of 2011 3 Equitable discretionary power cannot and need not be invoked in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are convinced. The petitioner cannot secure any favourable orders by skirting the issue and not caring to reveal to the Court the identity of that `some one' under whom respondents 2 to 4 are staking claims. 6. With the observation that the petitioner, if he has a grievance that the alleged title and possession of the property is attempted to be infringed and he is likely to be exposed to threats when he attempts to defend such alleged title and possession, must go to the civil court and get the disputes resolved there, this petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/