IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 302 of 2010(K)
1. VARGHESE, S/O.MATHEW,
... Petitioner
2. THOMAS, S/O.MATHEW,
Vs
1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. MATHEW, S/O.LONAPPAN, RESIDING AT
5. ANNIE, W/O.MATHEW, RESIDING
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :06/01/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.302 of 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Raman, J.
The first petitioner is stated to be the owner of an
extent of 27.625 cents of land of Puthenvelikkara Village, as per
sale deed No.127/05 of Sub Registry Office, Chennamangalam
and he purchased the property from George, S/o.Lonappan. The
second petitioner is his brother. After the death of George, the
legal heirs of the transferor, filed a suit for partition and for a
declaration alleging that the sale deed in favour of the first
petitioner by the deceased was vitiated. That suit was ultimately
dismissed and Ext.P4 judgment is produced in evidence thereof.
Ext.P4 shows that a preliminary decree was passed for partition
in respect of some items of properties. What was thus allowed
to be partitioned was Ext.A5 property referred to in Ext.P4
judgment. But according to the petitioners, the property now in
question is Ext.A4 property referred to in Ext.P4 judgment, in
W.P.(C) No.302 of 2010
2
respect of which the finding rendered by the court below is that
Ext.A4 is a valid sale deed executed by George in favour of the
9th defendant for valid consideration. Ext.A4 is a deed of the
year 2005. According to the petitioners, despite the fact that
the suit was dismissed as against the claim covered by Ext.A4
property and the petitioners are entitled to enjoy the same,
party respondents are causing obstruction. Hence, this petition
for police protection.
2. The averments on facts shows that though
according to the petitioners, first petitioner has purchased the
property as per Ext.A4 referred to in Ext.P4, they were not in a
position to enjoy the property because of the dispute. In so far
as the petitioners have not approached the Civil Court for any
remedy, in case there is any obstruction caused in enjoying the
property, and in view of lapse of time, it will not be appropriate
to grant police protection. For enabling the petitioners to enjoy
the property said to have been purchased by them, covered by
W.P.(C) No.302 of 2010
3
Ext.A4 sale deed referred to in Ext.P4 judgment, the proper
remedy is to approach the Civil Court.
In such circumstances, we are not inclined to
exercise the discretionary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, in this case. Accordingly, the writ
petition is dismissed.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE
nj.