IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36680 of 2009(D)
1. SHEENA, W/O SETHURAJ, AGED 41 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. S.I. OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. MANILAL, AKSHAJAM, DARSANA NAGAR 54,
3. LEENA W/O MANILAL, OF DO. DO.
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR)
For Respondent :SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :08/11/2010
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH &
M. C. HARI RANI, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C).NOS.36680 OF 2009D
& 32292 OF 2010 J
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th, November, 2010.
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J.
Both these Writ Petitions being connected, they are disposed
of by this common Judgment.
2. W.P.(C).No.36680/2009 is filed on the following
allegations:
Petitioner purchased six cents of property from one Mr.
Balachandran, who is none other than the father-in-law of the
second respondent and the father of the third respondent.
Petitioner is in possession of that property on the date of sale and
she has effected mutation in her name vide Ext.P1 tax receipt.
WP(C).NOS.36680/09 & 32292/10 2
Second respondent has filed OS.No.731/07 on 17.10.2007 before
the Munsiff Court, Kollam stating that the father-in-law of the
second respondent is trying to alienate the property belonging to
him and also trying to put boundary by encroaching into his
property, vide Ext.P2 plaint. An interim order was passed vide
Ext.P3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was not aware of the
dispute between the second respondent and his father-in-law and
under the guise of Exts.P2 and P3, the second respondent is
threatening the petitioner and her husband and the second
respondent has demolished the south-western boundary wall of the
petitioner’s property. Petitioner is residing away from the property.
There is allegation of threat. Petitioner filed Ext.P4.
3. Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ
or order or direction commanding or compelling the
1st respondent to provide adequate and effective police
protection to the life of the petitioner and her family
WP(C).NOS.36680/09 & 32292/10 3
while enjoying the property mentioned in Ext.P1.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
writ or order directing the 1st respondent to take
necessary legal action against the illegal acts of
respondents 2 & 3 and their men.”
4. A Counter Affidavit is filed by respondents 2 and 3
producing Exts.R2(a) to R2(d).
5. The second and third respondents in W.P.(C).
No.36680/2009 are the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.32292/2010. In
the said Writ Petition also, the prayer is to grant protection to the
life of the petitioners and their family from any kind of threat,
obstruction and violation of the injunction order affecting peaceful
life of the petitioners. Petitioners therein, inter alia, relied on
Ext.P1 which is the injunction order. It is stated that while the
injunction order was in force, the defendant in the said Suit who is
the predecessor in interest of the petitioner in W.P.(C).
No.36680/2009, namely Sheena, alienated the property in favour
of the third respondent who is none other than the first petitioner in
WP(C).NOS.36680/09 & 32292/10 4
the said Writ Petition. It is stated that for violation of the
injunction order, a prosecution petition was filed under Order 39
Rule 2A. It is stated that the third respondent is causing
obstruction and she filed a fake complaint and reference is made to
the complaint in W.P.(C).No.36680/2009. The plaint is produced
as Ext.P4. The complaint submitted before the police is produced
as Ext.P5. It is stated, in fact, that as it is a civil dispute, the police
has not taken any action.
6. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners. We would think that in both these cases, the parties
have got appropriate remedies before the civil court and the
petition seeking police protection may not be appropriate.
Accordingly, we dismiss the Writ Petitions, making it clear that
this will be without prejudice to the right of the parties to seek
appropriate remedies before the civil court and we also make it
clear that we have not pronounced on the merits of the allegations
WP(C).NOS.36680/09 & 32292/10 5
made by either of the parties and the civil court shall proceed to
dispose of the matter untrammeled by anything contained in this
Judgment.
Sd/=
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
Sd/=
M.C. HARI RANI,
JUDGE
kbk.
//True copy//
PS to Judge