IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 20111 of 2010(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MUHAMMED ABDUL KADAR THAMLIHA, THUNDAIL VEEDU, THEKKUMBHAGOM P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN, SRI.MATTAYIL R.S. NAIR, SRI.RENJU V., SRI.ANIYAN P. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVOOR. 3. THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM. 4. JALALUDEEN, S/O. MUHAMMED ALI, THANDANAZHIKATHU VEEDU (KAVINTE THEKKATHU VEEDU), THEKKUMBHAGOM CHERI, THEKKUMBHAGOM P.O., KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM, PIN-691319. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.T.K. VIPINDAS. R4 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 20111/2010-L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE E.P.NO.103/2006 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/02/2009 IN E.P.NO.103/2006 IN O.S.NO.39/1971 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE, KOLLAM. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE DELIVERY REPORT PRODUCED BEFORE THE SUB CURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 25/09/2009. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 20/09/2009 REPRESENTATION DATED 11/06/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05/06/2010 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE, S. PARAVUR IN I.A. NO.418/2010 IN O.S.NO.55/2010. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 11/06/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WP(C) No.20111 of 2010-L ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 29th September 2010 Judgment Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner is the decree holder in a suit for partition. In execution of the decree in that suit, she was put in possession of the property. This is what is proved by the delivery kaichit. The private respondent appears to have filed an application before the execution court, raising what he calls as an obstruction on the premise that there is an excess delivery, going by the survey sketch, relied on at the preliminary decree stage. We notice this only to find that at least as regards one item of property in the delivery kaichit, there may be some disputes yet to be resolved at the instance of the private respondents herein. But, until such disputes are settled, the presumption stands as to the binding nature of the delivery kaichit. Therefore, taking into consideration the allegations and counter allegations as regards threat to life and property, we direct the police to WPC No.20111/10 2 ensure that law and order is maintained in the area and there is no occasion for any breach of public order and tranquility. We further direct that the fourth respondent will, as of now, not enter the property covered by the delivery kaichit, however, that the writ petitioner would also not effect any improvements of a permanent nature or put up any boundary, fencing, wall etc. This will pave way to expeditious consideration and disposal of the petition said to have been filed by the fourth respondent before the civil court. We clarify that we have not expressed anything on the merits of the rival contentions and they are left open for consideration by the civil court in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC No.20111/10 3