IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 25055 of 2011(F) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ MALATHI AMMA, D/O.VELAUDHAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT OOLERI MALAYIL, KAYANNA AMSOM, CHERUKKAD POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SRI.SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOORACHUNDU POLICE STATION, KOORACHUNDU-673527, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. NIRMALA AMMA, D/O.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, KALLANIKKAL, OOLERI MALAYIL, KAYANNA AMSOM, CHERUKKAD POST-673 527, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. ABHILASH, S/O.NIRMALA AMMA, -DO- -DO- ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI FOR R2,3 SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI FOR R2,3 SRI.JEEVAN MATHEW MANAYANI FOR R2,3 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25055 of 2011(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF PARTITION DEED NO.1425/75 OF NADUVANNUR SRO. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO.1070/93 DT.23/04/93 OF KOORACHUNDU SRO. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.04/02/11 IN SA NO.378/99 PASSED BY THIS HON. COURT. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF PETTION DT.19/07/11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DT.19/07/11 ISSUED BY TH 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF REVIEW PETITION DT.21/07/11 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THIS HON. COURT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.25055 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are sisters. The 3rd respondent is the son of the 2nd respondent. It is stated that there existed a dispute regarding partition of property which belonged to the father of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent filed civil suit against the petitioner seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit. But it was reversed in appeal in A.S.23/95 by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Koyilandy. Ultimately the matter came up before this court in Second Appeal and as per Ext.P3 judgment the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was confirmed. The contention of the petitioner is that inspite of the civil dispute attaining finality respondents 2 and 3 continued interference with possession of the petitioner in W. P. C. No.25055 of 2011 -2- relation to the property in question. Even though the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint before the 1st respondent no effective steps was taken to afford protection. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent filed Review Petition before this Court seeking review of Ext.P3 judgment. But this Court has not till date considered the Review Petition and Ext.P3 judgment remains in force. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the petitioner complains that respondents 2 and 3 are taking law into their own hands and are illegally interfering with the possession of the petitioner on the property. Hence he is seeking direction from this court to the 1st respondent to afford protection to the life of the petitioner and to the property in question. 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3, it is contended that the dispute is purely civil in nature and that Ext.P3 judgment is sought to be reviewed in Ext.P6 application. However, the allegation that the respondents are threatening the petitioner is stoutly denied. Per contra it is alleged that the relatives of the W. P. C. No.25055 of 2011 -3- petitioner and her son are threatening respondents 2 and 3. The allegation in the counter affidavit has been refuted by the petitioner through a reply affidavit filed. 3. The learned senior Government Pleader Sri.M.K.Aboobacker appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that it cannot be stated that civil disputes between the parties are over. As the review petition is pending before this court, the police are bound to proceed as if there exists a civil dispute. Hence, the first respondent is finding it difficult to render police protection. As regards the law and order situation, it was submitted by the learned Government Pleader that at the moment there is no law and order situation warranting rendition of police protection to the life of the petitioner. 4. We have heard the submissions of Sri.K.P.Sudheer learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Johnson Manayani learned counsel for the party respondents. and the learned senior Government Pleader Sri.M.K.Aboobacker. 5. Sri.Johnson Manayani submitted that so long as the W. P. C. No.25055 of 2011 -4- Review Petition is not disposed of by this court, it will not be correct to say that there is no civil dispute in respect of the property in question. This is not a case where the party respondents' contentions are without any basis. The Lower Appellate Court interfered with the judgment of the Trial Court allowing the appeal and granted a decree in favour of the party respondents. There is every likelihood that the Review Petition will be allowed. As regards the law and order situation, Mr.Manayani submitted before this court that his clients will not create any law and order situation. 6. Mr.Sudheer learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the judgment passed by this court in the second appeal, this court has to proceed on the basis that a civil dispute has been decided in favour of the writ petitioner. Police protection for enjoyment of the property be granted subject to the final outcome of the Review Petition. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We record the W. P. C. No.25055 of 2011 -5- submission of Mr.Johnson Manayani that the party respondents will not cause any injury or danger to the life and limbs of the petitioner. If the first respondent receives any petition from the petitioner complaining of any threat to her life and limbs from the part of the party respondents, the first respondent shall conduct immediate enquiry into any such petition and action shall be taken on the basis of the facts which are revealed in the enquiry. 8. Coming to the question of granting protection to the petitioner for enjoying the property covered by Ext.P2 gift deed, we feel that in the light of Ext.P3 judgment the petitioner is justified in seeking police protection for enjoyment of the property covered by Ext.P2. We direct the first respondent to render adequate protection to the petitioner for enjoyment of the property covered by Ext.P2 gift deed after 31/01/2012, if the request for protection in that regard is made by the petitioner before the first respondent. 9. We clarify that in case the review petition filed by W. P. C. No.25055 of 2011 -6- the 2nd respondent against Ext.P3 judgment is decided in favour of the 2nd respondent, this direction for the rendition of police protection for enjoyment of the property will stand automatically withdrawn. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns & dpk/- //True Copy// P. A. to Judge