High Court Kerala High Court

Seethi.C.K vs Dist.Supdt.Of Police on 18 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
Seethi.C.K vs Dist.Supdt.Of Police on 18 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 5377 of 2010(V)



1. SEETHI.C.K.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. DIST.SUPDT.OF POLICE,KASARAGOD AND ORS
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :18/02/2010

 O R D E R
                           K. M. JOSEPH &
                  M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   W.P.(C).No. 5377 of 2010 V
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010

                              JUDGMENT

Joseph, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a

direction to respondents 1 and 2 to give adequate police

protection to the petitioner and his family members against the

attempts made by the third respondent to take over the entire

property belonging to the petitioner and his family members on

the strength of Ext.P5 assignment deed.

2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The

petitioner, his three sisters, his brother and mother inherited 3.15

Acres of land from his father, who died intestate. Each of them

is having 1/6th share in the said property based upon an

agreement. Petitioner’s brother was the defendant in a money

suit, O.S.No. 117 of 2006, filed by one Madhusoodhana

W.P.(C).No. 5377 of 2010

2

Kedilaya. There was a compromise decree. Since his brother did not

repay the debt, his undivided share in the property was sold in

auction to Madhusoodhana Kedilaya, who later sold the same to the

third respondent. The complaint of the petitioner is that the third

respondent is trying to take the entire property of the petitioner and

his family on the strength of Ext.P5 assignment deed.

3. In the circumstances of this case, we would think that it is for

the petitioner to approach the civil Court against the third respondent

for appropriate relief. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner

to approach the civil court against the third respondent, this Writ

Petition is disposed of.

(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm