IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9344 of 2008(K)
1. P. THULASI, W/O.MADHAVA PANICKER,
... Petitioner
2. MADHAVA PANICKER, S/O.NARAYANA PANICKER,
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURATHICAD.
5. CHANDRIKA, W/O.LATE PARAMESWARA PANICKER
6. SREEDHARA PANICKE, S/O.KUNJU PILLAI
7. MADHU, S/O.GANGADHARAN PILLAI, SUMALAYAM
8. BINU,VALLYAYATHU VEEDU, CHUNAKKARA
9. MOHANAN, S/O.T.K.NARAYKANA PILLAI,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :23/05/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.HEMA,JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.P(C).No. 9344 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioners are husband and wife. Fifth respondent is the
first petitioner’s sister-in-law. They were residing together in the
family house. The first petitioner claims ownership over the said
family property, a portion of which is presently occupied by the fifth
respondent. The first petitioner has obtained Exhibit P2 decree to
recover possession of the said building from the occupation of the
fifth respondent. The petitioners submit that the appeal filed by the
fifth respondent against Exhibit P2 has been dismissed. While so,
the fifth respondent has encroached into the portion of the building
presently in the possession of the petitioners. They are driven out
and so, they are staying in a rented building. They want to occupy
the portion of the building which was earlier in their possession.
For that, they have moved the police by filing Exhibits P6, P7 and
P8 representations. But they are not rendering any help. Hence,
this Writ Petition seeking mainly the following relief:
WP(C).9344/08 2
“i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or
any other appropriate writ, direction or order
commanding respondents 1 to 4 to grant police aid
and protection to the life and limb of the petitioners
and to see that respondents 5 to 9 and their
supporters do not trespass into the remaining
portion of the tarwad house in which the petitioners
are residing and commit crimes.”
2. The dispute between the petitioners and the fifth
respondent is a civil dispute regarding the right to possession over
a family house. The police cannot adjudicate the rival claims and
render protection to the petitioners to re-enter the property. We are
concerned in this Writ Petition about the failure of the duty of the
police. Therefore, we are not justified in issuing any direction to the
police under Article 226 of the Constitution of India invoking its
power to issue a writ of mandamus. Therefore, the Writ Petition is
dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners
and their right to move the competent civil court for appropriate
reliefs. It is made clear that the statements made by us in this Writ
Petition based on the submissions of the petitioners will not affect
the contentions of the party respondents.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE
K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.