IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16772 of 2011(V) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SMT. ANNAKUTTY, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.LATE ULAHANNAN, RESIDING AT MADAPPILLYKKUNNEL HOUSE, KALLOORKKAD KARA AND VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 668. BY ADVS. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM, SRI.JEFF JOSEPH. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLOORKKAD POLICE STATION, KALLOORKKAD,PIN-686 668. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLURKKAD POLICE STATION, KALLOORKKAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 668. 3. CHACKO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, RESIDING AT MADAPPILLYKKUNNEL, KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE, OORULANTHANNI KARA, FROM MADAPPALLYKKUNNEL, KALLOORKKAD VILLAGE AND KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-686 668. 4. JAIMON, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. CHACKO, RESIDING AT MADAPPILLYKKUNNEL,KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE, OORULANTHANNI KARA, FROM MADAPPALLYKKUNNEL, KALLOORKKAD VILLAGE AND KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 668. 5. JAISAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. CHACKO, RESIDING AT MADAPPILLYKKUNNEL,KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE, OORULANTHANNI KARA, FROM MADAPPALLYKKUNNEL, KALLOORKKAD VILLAGE AND KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 668. Kss ..2/- ...2.... WPC.NO.16772/2011 V 6. JENS, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. CHACKO, RESIDING AT MADAPPILLYKKUNNEL, KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE, OORULANTHANNI KARA, FROM MADAPPALLYKKUNNEL, KALLOORKKAD VILLAGE AND KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-686 668. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS R3 TO R6 BY ADVS. SRI.N.N.ELAYATH, SRI.PAULSON THOMAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.16772/2011 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF SALE DEED NO.399/1976 DTD. 12/11/1989 OF MUVATTUPUZHA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE. P2: COPY OF SALE DEED NO.957/1986 DTD. 21/08/1986 OF MUVATTUPUZHA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE. P3: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD.27/02/2000 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA IN O.S.NO.514/1996. P4: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 27/02/2011 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA IN O.S.NO.601/1996 FILED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD. 17/06/2011 LODGED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS. P6: COPY OF RECEIPT DTD. 17/06/2011 ISSUED BY OFFICE OF 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R3(A): COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.149/87. R3(B): COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE OF EXHIBIT R3(A). R3(C): COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT R3(A). R3(D): COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT FILED BY THE COMMISSIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO.16772 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim,J Petitioner is a widow suffering from breast cancer disease. Husband of the petitioner died on 11.3.2011. Grievance voiced in this writ petition is against the alleged threat to the life of the petitioner and her daughter by respondents 3 to 6, who are none other than the brother of the deceased husband of the petitioner. Dispute pertains to possession of an immovable property having an extent of 70 cents comprised in Survey No.683/2A/1 and another extent of 55 cents comprised in the same survey number situated in Manjallur village, owned by the petitioner's husband. Title of the said properties vest in the name of the petitioner's husband by virtue of Exts.P1 and P2 documents. It is stated that, during the year 1986 there was an attempt from the side of the 3rd respondent to trespass into the property and the petitioner was constrained to file OS.No.514/96 before the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha. The said suit was decreed through Ext.P3 restraining the 3rd respondent by a WP(C) .16772/2011 2 permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the property and from committing any waste and altering its lie. It is also pointed out that the 3rd respondent had filed another suit OS.No.601/96 before the very same court seeking fixation of boundary of the property belonging to him, in which the petitioner's husband was the defendant. It is evident from Ext.P4 that the said suit was dismissed finding that the 3rd respondent failed to prove possession of the schedule property described thereunder. 2. According to the petitioner, despite Ext.P3 judgment had attained finality, the respondents 3 to 6 are causing threat and obstruction to the petitioner, her daughter as well as the workers engaged by them from carrying out agricultural operations in the property, which is covered under Exts.P1 and P2 documents and which is the schedule property in Ext.P3 judgment. It is also alleged that respondents 3 to 6 are causing threat to the life of the petitioner as well as her daughter, and inspite of Ext.P5 complaint lodged before respondents 1 and 2, no effective steps were taken to prevent such threat and obstruction. WP(C) .16772/2011 3 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 3 to 6 it is contended that there exist a dispute with respect to 13 cents of property which is not covered under Exts.P1 and P2 documents or under Ext.P3 judgment. It is stated that, yet another suit O.S.NO.401/2008, is now pending before the Munsiff Court, Muvatutpuzha with respect to the disputed possession of the said extent of 13 cents. According to the 3rd respondent he obtained title over the said property by document No.149/87 of the Sub Registrar Office, Kalloorkkad (Ext.R3(a)). Ext.R3(c) is produced to show that the 3rd respondent is in possession of the said extent of 13 cents of property. Ext.R3(d) is the copy of the commission report and rough sketch produced in that suit, which according to the 3rd respondent, will reveal that the said property lies separately from the schedule property described under Ext.P3 judgment. 4. Both parties concede that an Execution Petition is pending with respect to Ext.P3 judgment, in which the petitioner had alleged violation of the terms of the decree. The petitioner had already taken steps to execute the decree through appropriate legal steps. The dispute raised by the 3rd WP(C) .16772/2011 4 respondent seems to be that there was no proper identification made with respect to the schedule property and that under the guise of the decree there is an attempt from the side of the petitioner to trespass into the property which is the subject matter of the present suit (13 cents), which belongs to the 3rd respondent. However, such allegation is stoutly opposed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is also contended that the extent of 13 cents upon which the 3rd respondent is now raising claim was the subject matter of Ext.P4 suit and the 3rd respondent had failed in getting a decree for fixationn of boundary. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically complained that, apart from the question regarding violation of the terms of Ext.P3 judgment, the respondents 3 to 6 are causing imminent threat to the life and person of the petitioner. It is complained that the petitioner as well as her daughter are being intimidated and is prevented from enjoying the properties. 5. While considering the rival contentions and factual circumstances prevailing, we are of the opinion that the parties are at liberty to work out their remedies on the disputed rights, title or possession of the immovable properties, through WP(C) .16772/2011 5 appropriate steps before the competent civil courts. It is always left open to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief against respondent No.3, if there is any violation of the terms of Ext.P3 judgment. However respondents 3 to 6 have no manner of right to cause any threat or intimidation to the life and person of the petitioner and to her family members or to cause any obstruction to the workers engaged by them in violation of the terms of Ext.P3. Respondents 3 to 6 could not be permitted to take law into their own hands and to create situation by causing threat or intimidation to the petitioner, her family members or workers. If any such act is there from the part of respondents 3 to 6 it is for respondents 1 and 2 to take effective steps and to afford adequate protection. 6. Since it is noticed that Ext.P3 judgment had attained finality the civil court where the execution petition is pending shall take effective steps to prevent violation of the terms of Ext.P3 judgment. However we also notice that, considering the close relationships of the parties concerned, it will be desirable for the executing court to explore possibilities of arriving any amicable settlement of the issues. WP(C) .16772/2011 6 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to take effective steps for affording adequate protection to the life and person of the petitioner, her daughter as well as the workers engaged by them. We make it isclear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the civil litigation which is pending, including maintainability of the present suit alleged to have been filed by the 3rd respondent. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .16772/2011 7