High Court Kerala High Court

Yesudasan.M vs The Superintendent Of Police on 28 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Yesudasan.M vs The Superintendent Of Police on 28 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29598 of 2010(Y)


1. YESUDASAN.M,S/O.MAMAN UNNOONNI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,ALAPPUZHA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR,OF POLICE,

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,CHENGANNUR

5. GABRIYEL MAMMAN,AGED 53 YEARS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.AJITH MURALI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :28/09/2010

 O R D E R

THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.

————————————————————————

WP(C) No.29598 of 2010-Y

————————————————————————

Dated 28th September 2010

Judgment

Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, J.

Having regard to the nature of the directions

being issued hereunder, we do not deem it necessary to

issue notice to the 5th respondent. Accordingly, notice to

the 5th respondent is dispensed with, reserving his right to

move for review of this judgment, if he is aggrieved.

2. The petitioner and the 5th respondent are

brothers. The petitioner says that he had entrusted his

brother with his assets and had gone abroad. Later, it is

stated that the petitioner became sick and returned home,

only to find that his brother attempted to annexe for himself

some property belonging to the petitioner. A civil suit is

pending between the parties for partition. Now, the

petitioner alleges that his brother is using unlawful means,

including employing people with bad precedence to ensure

WPC 29598/10 2

injury to the petitioner and his property.

3. In the above situation, all that is required is

that the petitioner and the 5th respondent have to abide by

the decisions of the civil courts including the interim orders,

if any and for the police to ensure that there is no law and

order problem in the area. If any specific complaint or

threat to life is made either by the petitioner or the fifth

respondent, that would be addressed in accordance with

law. However, the police officers will not interfere with the

civil disputes between the parties.

The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly.





                            THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
                            JUDGE




                            P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE



sta

WPC 29598/10    3

WPC 29598/10    4