IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 781 of 2011(W) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KUPPOZHAKKAL JOSEPH ALIAS JOSEPH LUKE, KUPPOZHAKKAL HOUSE, PADIMARUTHU POST, ANANDASHRAM VIA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARAGOD - 671 121. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 121. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 121. 4. ANTONY ALIAS JAISON, S/O.JOSEPH LUKE, PADIMARUTHU POST, ANANDASHRAM VIA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 121. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. CHARISHMA R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.781/2011 W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE TITLE DEED IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY. P2: COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE BROTHER-IN-LAW OF THE PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT SHOWING THE NUMBER OF THE HOUSE SITUATED IN THE PROPERTY. P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 29/08/2005 IN WPC.NO.25537 OF 2005. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 31/10/2009 IN O.S.NO.148 OF 2009 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, HOSDURG. P6: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT SUB INSPECTOR. P7: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 10/12/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.781 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to the petitioners against the wanton, culpable and violent acts of his son, the fourth respondent herein. 2. According to the petitioner, he and his wife reside in a residential building which stands in the name of the petitioner and which is situated in a property belonging to his brother-in-law. The petitioner is the Power of Attorney holder of the said brother-in-law who is said to be employed in the United States. The petitioner and his wife are residing in the residential building situated in the property. The fourth respondent was indulging in contumacious and culpable acts against the petitioner and the petitioner was in these circumstances constrained to approach the civil court and obtain Ext.P5 decree. wpc No.781/2011 2 Subsequently, the petitioner had come to this Court seeking police protection and it is submitted that such petition was earlier allowed. Subsequently, the parties had come to agreement and the fourth respondent was residing with the petitioner and his wife in the property. But, according to the petitioner, the attitude of the fourth respondent changed and he is now indulging in contumacious, culpable and violent acts against the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition. Interim directions were issued on 14.1.2011. Respondents 1 to 3 were directed “to afford protection to the petitioner against the violent acts from the fourth respondent against the petitioner”. That direction is still in force. 3. The fourth respondent has entered appearance before court. He submits that actually the property belongs to his uncle and the petitioner's father is acting on the strength of a power of attorney issued in his favour by his uncle. His uncle, according to the fourth respondent, now wants to revoke the power of attorney. The fourth respondent is worried that the petitioner may, making use wpc No.781/2011 3 of the power of attorney, alienate the property belonging to his maternal uncle. 4. The fourth respondent categorically states before Court that he is not now residing with the petitioner in the house in question. He shall not go to the house in question. Against the apprehended alienation of the property by the petitioner, the fourth respondent shall take necessary steps in accordance with law. The fourth respondent undertakes that he shall not go to the house where the petitioner resides along with his wife (i.e. the mother of the fourth respondent). He shall not indulge in any contumacious, culpable and violent acts against the petitioner. This undertaking may be accepted. No further directions are necessary, submits the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. 5. Notice was given to the learned Government Pleader and the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 submits that the interim order dated 14.1.2011 is being enforced scrupulously. In the perception of respondents 1 to 3, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner now. In view of the wpc No.781/2011 4 undertaking by the fourth respondent that he shall not enter the house where the petitioner resides and shall not cause any harm to the petitioner, no further specific directions are necessary. The interim order dated 14.1.2011 may be made absolute and this proceedings may be closed, submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We take note of the undertaking given by the fourth respondent. We take note of the submission of the learned Government Pleader. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the interim directions issued on 14.1.2011 can be made absolute and further proceedings can be closed. 7. This petition is accordingly allowed. The interim direction issued on 14.1.2011 is made absolute. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/