IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 22730 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MOOSAKOYA, S/O.KUNHAHAMMADKUTTY HAJI, AGED 61 YEARS, CHALILAKATH, A.R.NAGAR, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SAMI, S/O.KELU, NECHICHINAKKAL HOUSE, A.R.NAGAR, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. BALAN, S/O.KELU, -DO- -DO- 4. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KELU, -DO- -DO- 5. VASUDEVAN, S/O.KELU, -DO- -DO- 6. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.KELU, -DO- -DO- ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R2,4-6 SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH FOR R2,6 SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR FOR R2,6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.22730/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.31.1.1997 IN O.S.NO.2/1992 PASSED BY THEMUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAPPANANGADI. EXT.P2: COPY OF DECREE DT.31.1.1997 IN O.S.NO.2/1992 PASSED BY MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAPPANANGADI. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.12.10.2006 IN A.S.NO.39/1997 PASSED BY SUB COURT, TIRUR. EXT.P4: COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.6.7.2007 IN R.S.A.NO.293/2007 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P5: COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.11.6.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN O.S.NO.2/1992 MUNSIFF COURT, PARAPPANANGADI. EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3220/1928 S.R.O., TIRURANGADI. EXT.R2(c): COPY OF THE SURVEY SETTLEMENT REGISTER OF MOOSALIKUNNU PARAMBA AND NECHICHENEKKAL MADUPARAMBA ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, REGIONAL ARCHIVES. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22730 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner submits he and his brothers are the absolute owners of one acre of property in resurvey No.398/3-4 of A.R.Nagar Village in Tirurangadi Taluk. The predecessor in interest of respondents 2 to 6 filed a suit against the petitioner and his brothers seeking an injunction restraining them from trespassing into the property or causing any damage. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court by Ext.P1. The said judgment was confirmed by the 1st appellate court by Ext.P3. The petitioner submits, the said courts have found the title and possession of the petitioner and his brothers over the property. The second appeal attempted against Ext.P3 was dismissed by this Court by Ext.P4 judgment. In view of the above judgments, the party respondents have no semblance of right over the property, it is submitted. But, when the petitioner went to the property along with his workers, the respondents 2 to 6 W.P.(C) No.22730/2008 2 threatened them with physical violence for entering the property. Immediately, he filed Ext.P5 representation before the police. Alleging that the police did not take any effective action to protect him, this writ petition is filed. 2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing the right of the petitioner over the property. According to the said respondent, the suit was dismissed mainly on the ground that the property in respect of which injunction was sought cannot be identified. It is also submitted that there is no clear finding regarding the title of the petitioner or his brothers by the civil court. Because of the failure of the plaintiff to prove his title and possession, the suit was dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in answer submitted that there is a clear finding by the appellate court regarding the title and possession of the petitioner and his brothers. W.P.(C) No.22730/2008 3 4. The dispute between the parties is a civil dispute. If, the party respondents are causing obstruction to the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner and his brothers, the remedy of them lies before the civil court. They can move the civil court and try to get an injunction against the obstructors. If the injunction order is violated, the civil court can address the police to render necessary assistance to the plaintiffs. Even if, the petitioner has got a final decree against the party respondents in a suit filed by him and if that is violated by the defendants, the remedy of the petitioner is to move the court which passed the decree. In this case, there is no decree in favour of the petitioner except some findings in the judgments dismissing the suit of the contesting respondents. So, the petitioner cannot claim superior rights than a decree holder. The police have no power or authority to go through the judgments in favour of the petitioner and thereafter come to his rescue if the alleged rights flowing from the decree are infringed by the parties to that suit. The police cannot be conferred any such jurisdiction. There is no law in force in India authorising the police to do that. In this jurisdiction, we are concerned only with the failure of duty from W.P.(C) No.22730/2008 4 the part of the police. We are not supposed to adjudicate the rights of the parties and thereafter order protection based on our findings. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps