IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22730 of 2008(E)
1. MOOSAKOYA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. SAMI, S/O.KELU, NECHICHINAKKAL HOUSE,
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-
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
For Respondent :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :03/11/2008
O R D E R
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