IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 25435 of 2007(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. VAKAYIL PARAVANNUR SREEMATHI, D/O. THAMA @ APPUTTY, VETTOM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 2. VAKAYIL PARAVANNUR LAKSHMI, D/O. -DO- -DO- 3. VAKAYIL PARAVANNUR SUKUMARI, D/O. -DO- -DO- 4. VAKAYIL PARAVANNUR SAVITHRI, D/O. -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. VAKAYIL PARAVANNUR SREEDHARAN, D/O. THOMA @ APPUTTY, VETTOM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 2. VAKAYIL PARAVANNUR RAJAN, D/O. THAMA @ APPUTTY, VETTOM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 3. CHANDRAN, S/O. CHERUPURAKKAL VELAYUDHAN, PRESIDENT, PACHATTIRI VENTEKOTTA BHAGAVATHI KSHETHRA SAMITHI, PACHATTIRI AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SALIM.P.A. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE OLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.25435/2007 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE judgment IN O.P.NO.7647 OF 1995. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.128/1995 AND O.S.NO.143/1995. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN,JJ. ========================= WRIT PETITION NO. 25435 OF 2007 ========================= Dated this the 22nd day of January 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioners are sisters. Respondents 1 and 2 are their brothers. There was a family temple adjacent to the property owned by the petitioners. Respondents 1 and 2 claimed that the said property was being used for holding the rituals and temple festivities and the pathway to the temple was through that property. Seeking a declaration concerning the above matters and also for injunction against the petitioners, respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit before the Munsiff Court, Tirur. The petitioners filed another suit for fixation of boundary of their property. Both the suits were tried and dismissed by a common judgment which is produced as Ext.P2. Learned Munsiff held that respondents 1 and 2 herein failed to prove that the property belonging to their sisters was being used for the temple purposes. The suit of the petitioners was also dismissed on finding that there were clearly W.P.(C)25435/2007 2 demarcated boundaries and it is unnecessary to demarcate the same again. The learned Munsiff opined that the remedy of the petitioners was to seek an injunction against the persons obstructing the renovation of the existing fencing. 2. The petitioners have filed Ext.P3 representation before the police on 19.4.2007 praying for protection for erecting fence for their property. Thereafter this writ petition is filed on 20.8.2007 seeking the following relief: "To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 4th respondent to afford sufficient and meaningful protection to the petitioners for enclosing the properties on the demarcating boundaries around the properties of the petitioners as found in Ext.P3 judgment without any let or hindrance from respondents 1 to 3 and their men." 3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that there is dispute between the parties regarding the existence or otherwise of a pathway leading to the temple through the properties of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, there is another access from the main road to the temple. But, according to the respondents 1 and 2, through the property of the petitioners, there is a pathway leading to the temple. They W.P.(C)25435/2007 3 want to put up fence and thereby obstruct the pathway. 4. Normally, police protection cannot be granted for putting up a fence or a compound wall. For putting a fence or compound wall, the petitioners can move the civil court and get appropriate orders. The civil court has ample powers to address the police to enforce its orders, if found necessary. 5. In view of the above position, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners and their right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/