IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 38311 of 2010(L)
1. MELBI MATHAI, AGED 34 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. SEEJI GEORGE, AGED 36 YEARS,
Vs
1. THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. FATHER VARGHESE THEKKEKKARA,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :27/01/2011
O R D E R
R.BASANT &
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
WPC No.38311 of 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th January, 2011
JUDGMENT
Basant, J.
The petitioners have come to this Court with this
petition seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the
Constitution in their favour to the first respondent to afford
police protection for enjoyment of property covered by
Ext.P1 document and against the allegedly untoward violent,
culpable and contumacious conduct of the second
respondent.
2. The petitioners claim to be members of an
organization by name Iringole Jacobite Syrian Christian
Yuva Jana Sangham. According to the petitioners, the
property was purchased in the name of the Sangham by
Ext.P1 sale deed in 1963. Thereafter, the property was in
the possession of the said Sangham. According to the
petitioners, the second respondent has no rights in respect
of the said property. The second respondent, according to
the petitioners, is a person of questionable antecedents. He
wpc No.38311/2010 2
is attempting to physically obstruct the petitioners from
enjoyment of the property. He is indulging in violent acts.
In these circumstances, the petitioners have come to this
Court seeking police protection.
3. Notice was given to the respondents. The learned
Government Pleader appears for the first respondent – Sub
Inspector of Police. The second respondent is represented
by a counsel.
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent
submits that the petitioners have no locus whatsoever to
represent the Yuva Jana Sangam which had acquired the
property under Ext.P1. They do not even claim to be the
office bearers of the said Sangham. They only claim to be
members of the Sangham. According to the second
respondent, the Sangham by a decision of its general body
on 7.7.2010 had decided to give the property in favour of
Perumbavur Bathel Suloco Jacobite Suriani Cathedrel. The
second respondent who is the Parish priest of the said
Cathedral had represented the Cathedral in the document.
The document, a copy of which is produced as Ext.R2(a) is
seen dated 15.11.2010. It is seen executed in favour of the
said Church represented by the second respondent and two
wpc No.38311/2010 3
other trustees of the church. The gift is made subject to
conditions which are enumerated in Ext.R2(a). After
execution of the document Ext.R2(a) mutation has been
effected in the name of the transferree church. Ext.R2(b)
evidences payment of tax by the transferree. Ext.R2(c)
Possession Certificate has been issued by the Village
Officer, Perumbavur and that certificate dated 30.12.2010
also suggests that the transferree under Ext.R2(a) is in
possession of the property. Ext.R2(d) certificate of
ownership indicates that the church is the owner of the
building in that property. That certificate is issued by the
Secretary of the Rayamangalam Grama Panchayat.
5. The learned counsel for the second respondent
submits that the Yuva Jana Sangham claiming to act through
its Secretary has filed a suit O.A.No.284/2010 before the
Munsiff’s Court, Perumbavur. Interim orders were also
prayed for. No orders have been passed and the suit is
pending before the Perumbavur Munsiff’s Court.
6. The learned counsel for the second respondent
submits that in these circumstances, the petitioners who do
not even claim to be the office bearers of the Yuva Jana
Sangham cannot be permitted to claim police protection
wpc No.38311/2010 4
over the property over which their rights have not been
established. According to the second respondent, the said
suit is also not filed by the Secretary and a person claiming
to be the Secretary has filed this Suit. In any case, the
petitioners cannot claim right, title or possession over the
property nor can they claim police protection. Before
dispute regarding such rights are settled, the attempt to
claim police protection cannot be justified.
7. The learned Government Pleader, after taking
instructions, submits that a complaint was received from
some persons claiming to represent the Sangham. A crime
was registered as Crime No.846/2010 of Kuruppampady
Police Station. After investigation, on coming to know of
Ext.R2(a) gift deed, in the absence of any better material to
indicate that the petitioners and such others have rights
over the property, steps have not been taken to prosecute
the second respondent. At any rate, the police cannot sit in
judgment over the right, title and possession of the parties.
The parties may be directed to seek appropriate orders from
the Civil Court in the pending proceedings or in the
proceedings to be initiated hereafter. At any rate, the
learned Government Pleader submits that the police cannot
wpc No.38311/2010 5
decide the disputed right, title and possession of the parties.
8. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We have
gone through Ext.P1 and Ext.P2. We note that nothing is
produced to indicate that the petitioners are representatives
of the Yuva Jana Sangham or are competent to represent the
Yuva Jana Sangham now. We do not intend to express any
opinion on the disputed rights of the parties. Suffice it to
say that we are satisfied that before the question of rights of
the parties is resolved by initiating appropriate proceedings
before the competent civil court, no directions under Article
226 are liable to be issued. The police cannot be entrusted
with the responsibility of resolving such disputes and
therefore, no writ can be issued to the police to decide such
disputes and grant protection to one of the contestants.
9. This writ petition is in these circumstances
dismissed.
R.BASANT
JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN
JUDGE
css/