IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27241 of 2009(A)
1. SAJU.P.P., AGED 48 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. TEH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
5. KUTTAN DAMAODARAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
6. SARASWATHI DAMODARAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.E.D.GEORGE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :31/01/2011
O R D E R
R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
***********************
W.P(C) No.27241 of 2009-A
*****************************
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for
issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to respondents 1 to 4 to afford police protection to the petitioner
for the enjoyment of property delivered to him under Ext.P15
without any obstruction from respondents 5 and 6.
2. According to the petitioner, 15 cents of property
belonged originally to respondent No.6. The 5th respondent is
the husband of the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent had
agreed to sell the property to the petitioner and for specific
performance of the said agreement, a suit was filed. The same
was decreed. Ext.P1 is the judgment. An appeal was taken. The
same was dismissed. Ext.P2 is the deed of sale executed by the
court on behalf of the 6th respondent in execution. At long last,
the property was delivered through court under Ext.P12 delivery
kaichit. According to the petitioner, the 6th respondent, the party
bound by the decree and the execution proceedings, and her
husband, the 5th respondent, are raising untenable, illegal,
W.P(C) No.27241 of 2009-A 2
wanton, culpable and violent objections to the enjoyment of the
property by the petitioner. It is, in these circumstances, that the
petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of
directions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. Service is complete. The 5th and 6th respondents have
not chosen to file any counter statement. Today when the matter
came up for hearing, there is no representation for respondents
5 and 6. It is brought to our notice that interim orders were
passed by this Court on 07.10.2009 and 05.07.2010. Such
orders have been extended from time to time and are in force
even now.
4. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the
police officials/respondents submits that interim orders are
being implemented scrupulously. The learned Government
Pleader submits that the interim orders can now be made
absolute and this proceedings can be closed.
5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We note
that there is no representation for respondents 5 and 6. They
have not filed any objections before this Court. The documents
make it clear that, with the 6th respondent as a party in
the party array, the dispute was resolved and the property was
W.P(C) No.27241 of 2009-A 3
delivered to the petitioner under Ext.P15. The petitioner’s
prayer for police protection without any obstruction from
respondents 5 and 6, it appears to us to be, absolutely
reasonable in the circumstances of the case. We particularly
take note of the fact that no objection whatsoever has been
raised and the interim orders have remained in this case from
07.10.2009 onwards.
6. This petition is accordingly allowed. Interim orders
are made absolute. Respondents 2 to 4 are directed to afford
protection for the petitioner to enjoy the property delivered to
him under Ext.P15 without any illegal obstruction or objection
from respondents 5 and 6.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)
rtr/