Dismissed

Thankappan v. State of Kreala

Kerala HC2 Jul 2010WP(C)/14731/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ directions for protection of life and property against eviction threats by relatives holding a property deed. The Court recorded the submission that respondents have no intention to cause threat and disposed of the petition by referring parties to the civil court for their remedy.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner relegated to pursue remedy before the competent civil court.

Thankappan Vs State of Kreala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932

¶6

WP(C).No. 14731 of 2010(N)

PETITIONER:

THANKAPPAN, SAJI VIHAR, SOORANAD SOUTH, ERAVICHIRA NADUVIL,PATHARAM PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP

SMT.SURYA SASI

RESPONDENTS:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,KOLLAM.

¶17

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM.

¶18

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,SOORANAD POLICE STATION,SOORANAD.

¶19

IBRAHIM KUTTY,KOCHUTHUNDIL,ERAVICHIRA NADUVIL,PATHARAM PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶20

NIYAS,KOCHUTHUNDIL,ERAVICHIRA NADUVIL,PATHARAM PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶21

RIYAS,KOCHUTHUNDIL,ERAVICHIRA NADUVIL, PATHARAM PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶22

HUSSAIN,KOCHUTHUNDIL,ERAVICHIRA NADUVIL, PATHARAM PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶23

SREEJA,MANASERRY VEEDU,ERUVAKIZHAKKUM MURI,PATHIYOOR PO,KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶24

G.P. SRI.. T K VIPINDAS FOR R1 - 4

¶25

ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL FOR R5,7&8 SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI FOR R9

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

WP(C).No. 14731/2010

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶30

EXT.P1 : A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 9.4.2010 IN I.A.565/10 IN CMA. NO. 28/2010 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM.

¶31

EXT.P2 : A TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN CMA 28/2010 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM.

¶32

EXT.P3 : A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT MADE TO 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXT.P4 : A TRUE COPY OF FIR NO.388/2010 OF SOORNAD POLICE.

¶34

EXT.P5 : A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 3.5.2010 MADE TO THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶35

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶36

// TRUE COPY//

¶37

K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶38

- - - - W.P.(C).No. 14731 of 2010 N

¶39

- - - - Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

Joseph, J.

¶42

The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to accord adequate protection to the life

¶43

and property of the petitioner and his family members for the peaceful residence in House No.630 of Ward No.I of Sooranad South Panchayat Village.

¶44

Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner is aged and ailing, who is residing with his wife, aged mother-in-law and his daughter in the above house. 9^th respondent is the wife of the elder son of the petitioner. Towards security for the amount advanced, a deed was executing conveying 4.5 ares of property in favour of the 9th respondent, without any demarcation. There was strain in the

¶45

¶46

W.P.(C).No. 14731 of 2010

¶47

relationship between the petitioner and the 9^th respondent. She attempted to sell the property to strangers. The petitioner filed O.S.No. 158 of 2009 before the Munsiff Court, Sasthamcotta.

¶48

The 5^th respondent, who is an influential person in the locality, purchased the property knowing the pendency of the suit and using the criminal force, he is trying to evict the petitioner. Though the petitioner filed a petition before the Sooranad Police, no action is taken to protect the life of the petitioner and his family members from the illegal threat of respondents 5 to 8.

¶49

A counter affidavit is filed by the 5^th respondent on behalf of respondents 7 and 8 also. According to the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent, the property is in the possession and enjoyment of the respondent. He would further submit that respondents 5, 7 and 8 have no intention to cause any threat to the petitioner.

¶50

W.P.(C).No. 14731 of 2010

¶51

¶52

We record the said submission and close this Writ Petition

¶53

relegating the parties to pursue their remedy before the competent

civil court.

(K. M. JOSEPH)

Judge

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge

¶58

Thankappan v. State of Kreala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thankappan v. State of Kreala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Nair Vs the Sub Inspector of Police,Kalady

Aleyamma Cyril Vs State of Kerala

Moideenkutty Vs the Superintendent of Police and Others

S.Manafudeen Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

O.John Vs Superintendent of Police

Sobha Salim Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Kasargod