IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25119 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ALANGADAN KUNHAVARU, S/O ALASSANKUTTY HAJI, PARAPPUR AMSOM DESOM, THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENGARA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 4. KOOTHUMADAN MUHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O LATE SAIDALI, P.O. KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. KOOTHUMADAN KUNHIPATHUMMA, S/O LATE SAIDALI, P.O. KOOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. KOOTHUMADAN KADIYAKUTTY, D/O LATE SAIDALI, P.O. RANDATHANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. KOOTHUMADAN KUNHAUOSUMMA, D/O LATE SAIDALI, P.O. KARUMPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. WP(C).No. 25119 of 2008(M) 8. KOOTHUMADAN FATHIMAKUTTY, D/O LATE SAIDAI, P.O. RANDATHANI, MALAPURAM DISTRICT. 9. KOOTHUMADAN SAINABA, D/O LATE SAIDALI, P.O. ANANTHAVOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.8.2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.25119 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF AUGUST, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner and his wife claim ownership and possession over 52 cents of land comprised in re-survey No.294/1, 294/2 and 294/3 of Parappur Village. When the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 4 to 9 tried to trespass into the property, they filed O.S.No.174/84 before the Munsiff's Court, Parappanangadi seeking permanent prohibitory injunction restraining him from trespassing into the property or committing waste therein. The suit was dismissed. A.S.No.15/88 filed by them was allowed by the Sub Judge, Tirur. The defendant appealed to this Court. S.A.No.621/93 filed against the judgment and decree of the Sub Court was dismissed by this Court by Exhibit P1 judgment dated 7.1.2008. During the pendency of the second appeal, the appellant died and his legal heirs, who are respondents 4 to 9 herein were impleaded as supplemental appellants. This Court declined to interfere with the finding of the Sub Judge that the petitioner and his wife are in possession of the property. The petitioner submits, ignoring the said judgment, respondents 4 to 9 are W.P.(C)No.25119/08 -2- trying to interfere with their possession, trespass into the property and threaten their workers, who do agricultural operations there. So, they have moved E.P.No.136/08 before the Munsiff's Court, Parappanangadi to take action against respondents 4 to 9 for violating the injunction order. They have also moved the police, by filing Exhibit P2 representation dated 14.7.2008 pointing out the high handed actions of respondents 4 to 9. Again they filed Exhibit P3 representation before the police on 5.8.2008. Alleging that the police did not extend any helping hand, this Writ Petition is filed. The petitioner also admits that respondents 4 to 9 have filed a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title of the aforementioned property. 2. The pleadings in the Writ Petition and the materials produced along with it would show that essentially the grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 4 to 9 are not respecting the decree granted by the civil court. They are violating the same. In that process, there is threat to his life also. If that be so, the remedy of the petitioner is to pursue the E.P. filed by them. The civil court has power under Section 151 C.P.C. to address the police to enforce its orders. In this jurisdiction, we are concerned only with the failure of duty of the police. No statute has been brought to our notice which enables the police to go into the dispute regarding violation of an injunction order of the civil court and grant W.P.(C)No.25119/08 -3- remedy to the aggrieved persons. If the police do not have any such duty conferred by any statute, this Court cannot issue any mandamus against them as sought for by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. It is clarified that this judgment will not affect the powers of the police to take action in accordance with law, if any cognizable offence is reported. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn