IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13228 of 2011(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M.P.KARTHIYAYANI AMMA, D/O.DEVAKIAMMA, AGED 72 YEARS, ALUNKAL HOUSE, KUPPADI AMSOM DESOM, MOOLAMKAVU, SULTAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SUSHEELAMANI, D/O.DEVAKIYAMMA, RESIDING AT ERAYANGADATHU HOUSE, KUPPADI AMSOM DESOM, MOOLANKAVU, SULTAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT-PIN- 673 703. 2. SANTHAKUMARIYAMMA, D/O.DEVAKIYAMMA, RESIDING AT ERAYANGADATHU HOUSE, KUPPADI AMSOM DESOM, MOOLANKAVU, SULTAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT-PIN- 673 703. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SULTHAN BATHERY-PIN- 673 703. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts 2/- -2- WP(C)NO.13228/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21/4/2011 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A) COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT PASSED IN O.S.NO.146/2007 AND O.S.NO.191/2007 BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, SULTAN BATHERY. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.13228 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 15th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J: The petitioner, a 72 year old woman, has come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions to the 3rd respondent to afford police protection to the petitioner against the threat to the life and person caused to her by respondents 1 and 2, who are none other than her sisters. 2. According to the petitioner, she is the owner of an item of property which has been bequeathed in her favour by her mother. In that property there is a residential building also. She is residing along with the daughter and grand daughter. Respondents 1 and 2 are indulging in contumacious, culpable and violent acts. What are such acts? It is stated that they are trespassing into the property and interfering with the right of residence of the petitioner in the property along with the daughter and grand daughter. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 have entered appearance. They totally denied the allegations. According to them, the W.P.(C).NO.13228 OF 2011 : 2 : petitioner has no exclusive right over the property. The property belongs to the mother of the petitioner and on her death, the property has devolved upon all the children of the deceased mother. All are co-owners in respect of the property. It is true that the son-in-law of the petitioner attempted to stake a claim on the basis of a forged and fabricated Will. That attempt has not succeeded. 4. The petitioner, it is alleged, went to the civil court seeking an order of injunction against respondents 1 and 2, but that attempt did not succeed. Respondents 1 and 2 had filed the suit for partition and that suit now stands decreed. Even though it is submitted that an appeal has been preferred, no interim order of the civil court is produced. In these circumstances, it is very evident that in law , the status of the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 in respect of the property is that of co-owners only. A preliminary decree for partition has already passed in respect of the property. It is admitted that there is no binding direction of any civil court regarding the manner of enjoyment of the property by the co-owners. It is W.P.(C).NO.13228 OF 2011 : 3 : evident now that the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in respect of the property against respondents 1 and 2, who are co-owners along with the petitioner. 5. Petitioner then contends that respondents 1 and 2 are indulging in contumacious and culpable acts. This allegation is stoutly denied by respondents 1 and 2. The counsel submits that they are old women aged 62 and 60 years. The allegations are totally false. The petitioner's attempt is to steal a march over the respondents 1 and 2 in the civil litigation and to avoid delay in execution of the decree for partition. The petitioner is not in law entitled to claim exclusive possession over the property in dispute. Consequently, we do not think it necessary to issue a direction regarding enjoyment of the property under Article 226. There is an allegation of culpable contumacious conduct on the part of respondents 1 and 2. That allegation is stoutly denied . 6. We then turned to the learned Government Pleader and learned Government Pleader submits that in the perception of the 3rd respondent, there is no threat to the W.P.(C).NO.13228 OF 2011 : 4 : life or person of the petitioner. If there be any such threat to the life and person of the petitioner, the petitioner can complain and appropriate action shall be taken by the police. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that it may be clarified that if there is any contumacious act on the part of the petitioner against respondents 1 and 2, the same shall also be appropriately responded by the police. The learned Government Pleader accepts that request also on behalf of the 3rd respondent. 7. We are in these circumstances satisfied that no specific direction under Article 226 needs or deserves to be issued. This petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. Sd/= R. BASANT, JUDGE. Sd/= K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. /true copy/ P.S. to Judge. cl