IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31727 of 2010(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. SARASWATHY AMMA, W/O.LATE KESAVAN NAIR, AGED 64 YEARS, POKKATT HOUSE, NOOLELIKARA- ODAKKALI, ASHAMANNOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. REJITHA NAIR, W/O.V.SAJIKUMAR, VALIYAMADOM @ POKKATT HOUSE, VARAPETTY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. V.SAJIKUMAR, S/O.JANARDHANAN NAIR, VALIYAMADOM @ POKKATT HOUSE, VARAPETTY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVASIA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683545. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683542. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683101. 4. RAGHAVAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 52 YEARS, REGUMANDIRATHIL HOUSE, NOOLELIKARA, ODAKKALI, ASHAMANNOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683549. 5. JAYASREE, W/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, REGUMANDHIRATHIL HOUSE, NOOLELIKARA, ODAKKALI, ASHAMANNOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683549. 6. VISNU, S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, REGUMANDHIRATHIL HOUSE, NOOLELIKARA, ODAKKALI, ASHAMANNOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683549. 7. REGHU, S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, REGUMANDHIRATHIL HOUSE, NOOLELIKARA, ODAKKALI, ASHAMANNOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683549. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. R4 TO R7 BY ADV.SRI.B.JAYASANKAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.31727 OF 2010-M PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DATED 6.3.1964 OF SRO PERUMBAVOOR EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 15.9.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITINER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3.TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 6.10.2010 AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 11.10.2010. K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.31727 of 2010-M ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the Ist day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking police protection. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: The 2nd petitioner is the daughter of the Ist petitioner. The 3rd petitioner is the husband of the 2nd petitioner. The 4th respondent is the son-in-law of the petitioner's late brother. Respondents 5 to 7 are the wife of the 4th respondent and their sons. Formerly the Ist petitioner is in absolute possession of 1.08 acres of land. Subsequently, the said property was looked after by the Ist petitioner's late brother. After the retirement of the Ist petitioner's husband the Ist petitioner and husband started to live in the property. The Ist petitioner's husband died in 2005. The Ist petitioner's son is residing at Palakkad and her daughter is residing about 15 kilometers away from the property. The Ist petitioner's brother had also landed property adjoining to the petitioner's WPC No.31727/2010 -2- property. The 4th respondent had an idea to purchase the property at a negligible price. It is stated that false suit caused to be filed by the 4th respondent. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiff did not appeal the decision. Respondents 4 to 7 have an idea to take forceful possession of the property. On 14.9.2009 the 4th respondent trespassed into the property and cut and removed valuable timbers. The Ist petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation. The 4th respondent is working in Vigilance Department as Sub Inspector of Police. Utilizing the official power, the 4th respondent is continuously threatening the petitioners to execute sale deed at a negligible price. It is stated that the 4th respondent and his men threatened the petitioners that if the Ist petitioner will not execute the sale deed in favour of the 4th respondent, he will assassinate the petitioners. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7. Learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7 would submit that the allegations against respondents 4 to 7 are totally incorrect and they have no intention to force the petitioners to execute WPC No.31727/2010 -3- a sale deed. He also submits that respondents 4 to 7 did not made any threat to the lives of the petitioners. We record the same and dispose of the writ petition. If, contrary to the submission made by respondents 4 to 7, there is any threat to the lives of the petitioners by respondents 4 to 7 and it is brought to the notice of the Ist respondent, the Ist respondent will look into the same, and if the threat is found to be genuine, he shall afford protection to the lives of the petitioners as against respondents 4 to 7. We make it clear that we have not pronounced on the property rights of the parties. If the matter comes before any Court/forum in a lis between the parties, that Court/forum shall proceed to dispose of the matter untrammelled by anything contained in this judgment. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE. MS .......