IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 24TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27328 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.PANKAJAKSHI, KOOLASSERRIL THEKKATHIL, KADATHUR MURI, KULASEKHARAPURAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM. 5. GOVINDAN SUDHARAN, CHANGAYAT PADINJATTATHIL, KIZHAKKEMURI, KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM. 6. SUDHAMONY, CHANGAYAT PADINJATTATHIL, KIZHAKKEMURI, KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM. 7. GOVINDAN SADANANDAN, CHANGAYATHU VEEDU, KIZHAKKEMURI, KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM. 8. GOVINDAN DEVARAJAN, CHANGAYATHU VEEDU, KIZHAKKEMURI, KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM. 9. GOURI JAGADAMMA, CHANGAYATHU VEEDU, KIZHAKKEMURI, KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM. WPC 27328/08 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL – R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 27328 OF 2008-C ----------------------------------------- Dated 15th September, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner obtained a parcel of land on the strength of a decree in O.S.No.145/1976, which was a partition suit. After the passing of the final decree in that suit, the petitioner was put in possession of her share, as per Ext.P1 proceedings in E.P.No.24/1995 on 16.6.1997. The petitioner submits, now some of the defendants in that partition suit, who are respondents 5 to 9 herein, are causing obstruction to the petitioner, while her children went to take usufructs from that property. So, she filed Ext.P4 representation before the police, seeking necessary protection for the enjoyment of the property. The petitioner points out, the respondents 5 and 6 have filed a suit for a declaration that the petitioner obtained the decree in the partition suit by playing fraud on the court. That suit was dismissed by Ext.P2 WPC 27328/08 2 judgment. The appeal against it was also dismissed by the appellate court, as per Ext.P3 judgment. In view of the above facts, interference with the enjoyment of the petitioner's property by the party respondents is unjustified.. Therefore, the police are bound to extend necessary protection, it is submitted. 2. Whether the party respondents have violated the decree granted by the civil court is not a matter which can be decided by the police. The police have no duty to stand guard for the property covered by Ext.P1. The petitioner has to guard it herself. If her right to enjoy that property is infringed by anyone, she can get reliefs from the civil court. The police cannot remedy the infringement of civil rights. They are mainly concerned with the commission/prevention of cognizable offences. The obiter dicta in P.R.Muralidharan v. Sawmi Dharmananda Theertha Padar [(2006)4 SCC 501] relied on by the petitioner will not improve her case. In this jurisdiction, we are concerned only with the failure of duty from the part of the police. Therefore, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to her contentions and WPC 27328/08 3 her right to move the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/