Disposed

Mariyamma George v. Dist. Superintendent of Police & Others

Kerala HC15 Jul 2010WP(C)/6833/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking police protection and a direction to complete a compound wall construction against a neighbour who breached a prior court-mandated settlement. The High Court directed police protection for the petitioner while noting parties could approach other forums for further disputes.

What did the court decide?

Directed official respondents to give protection to the petitioner. Noted parties can approach other forums for further orders.

Mariyamma George Vs Dist. Superintendent of Police & Others — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 6833 of 2010(D)

PETITIONER:

MARIYAMMA GEORGE, W/O. K.GEORGE, SHYJU BHAVAN, NELLIVILA, EDAVATTOM, VELLIMON P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶14

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.

¶15

DAMODHARAN PILLAI K.N., SWATHI, NELLIVILA, EDAVATTOM, VELLIMON P.O., KOLLAM.

¶16

GOVERNMENT PLEADE, SHRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1&2 ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR FOR R3 SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) FOR R3

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 6833 of 2010

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 24823 OF 2009. EXT.P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CONTEMPT CASE NO.106/2010. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.22.2.2010. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.5.5.2008 EXT.R3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.2.12.2008 EXT.R3(c): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.26.5.2009 EXT.R3(d): TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS. EXT.R3(e): TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.5.8.2009 EXT.R3(f): TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.18.8.2009 EXT.R3(g): TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.884 DT.26.8.2009 EXT.R3(h) : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF PETITIONER DT.31.12.2009 EXT.R3(i): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT.R3(h) 9.1.10

¶21

// TRUE COPY //

¶22

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

¶23

- - - - W.P.(C).No. 6833 of 2010 D

¶24

- - - - Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Joseph, J.

¶27

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to give adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner and her husband from the third respondent and protection for the construction of the compound wall at the boundary of the third respondent in continuation of the existing compound wall at the expense of the petitioner.

¶28

Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is a retired school teacher. Her husband is also a retired school teacher. They alone are living in their house. The third respondent is their close neighbour. The properties of the petitioner and the third respondent are lying adjacent to each

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C).No. 6833 of 2010

¶31

other. The third respondent constructed a shop building at the edge of the boundary separating the two properties. The third respondent cut and removed the branches of the trees, which are hanging to the property of the third respondent, without obtaining the consent of the petitioner and her husband. The third respondent closed the way of the petitioner to get into the road.

¶32

On 3.8.2009 the third respondent and his henchmen trespassed into the property of the petitioner and started to plaster the building of the third respondent. When the petitioner and her husband objected, the third respondent abused them and tried to beat the petitioner. There is a further allegation of an incident, which is alleged to have taken place on 15.8.2009. The petitioner filed W.P. (C) 24823 of 2009. In the said writ petition there was a conciliation conference, wherein the disputes were settled amicably. True copy of judgment in th said writ petition is Ext.P1, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

¶33

W.P.(C).No. 6833 of 2010

¶34

¶35

“ In the process of conciliation the parties have agreed that the construction of the compound wall will be completed at the expenses of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner will not cause any obstruction for plastering of the existing compound wall. We direct the petitioner to complete the construction within six months. We hope that the parties will continue to strengthen their healthy relationship which they have resumed today and they should be the model neighbours for the entire people of the locality. In view of th settlement of the disputes as above, we are of the view that it is not necessary for the parties to continue any further litigation in this regard. Hence, in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings are also to be pout an end to. Accordingly we quash the proceedings in FIR 884/09 on the file of Kundara Police Station.”

¶36

Petitioner had attempted to complete the compound wall as directed by this Court. But the third respondent objected the same.

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C).No. 6833 of 2010

¶39

The petitioner and the third respondent did not comply with the direction of this Court. Later third respondent constructed a compound wall and shop building at the western extremity of his boundary. The remaining portion extending from the partly constructed compound wall is to be completed. As per the terms of the agreement it has to be done by the petitioner. It means that the remaining portion of the compound wall has to be constructed in continuation of the existing compound wall at the boundary of the property of the third respondent touching the boundary of the petitioner at the expense of the petitioner. It is seen that the agreement was that the respondent would get a compound wall constructed without incurring any expense and for the money being spent by the petitioner she should would get a compound wall without the loss of the property at the boundary of her property. Against this agreement, the third respondent obstructed the construction. Hence

¶40

W.P.(C).No. 6833 of 2010

¶41

¶42

the petitioner filed Contempt Petition, C.O.C. 106 of 2010, which was disposed of as follows:

¶43

“If the petitioner could not comply with the direction as contained in the judgment, his remedy is to approach the court for necessary police protection and not to file a contempt application since the direction issued is against himself.”

¶44

A counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent producing Exts. R3(a) to R3(i), wherein it is stated, inter alia, as follows.

¶45

“8. It is mot respectfully submitted that the intention of the petitioner's son is to harass me and they are using their parents as a shield and filing cases against me by raising baseless allegations. The petitioner's sons want an illegal gain by constructing compound wall in my property. It is also very clear from paragraph 10 of the writ petition. I never threatened the petitioner or her men in any occasion.

¶46

¶47

W.P.(C).No. 6833 of 2010

¶48

This Hon'be Court quashed Ext.R3(g) FIR on the basis of the assurance given by the petitioner that she will plaster the demolished portions of the plaster of the wall of the shop room. Believing the words of the petitioner and her sons I did not file any review against Ext.P3 judgment with due respect to this Hon'ble Court. In the meantime the petitioner cheated the 3^rd respondent and escaped from criminal liability.”

¶49

No reply affidavit as such was filed. The parties were

¶50

referred for a mediation on 3.6.2010, but the matter was not settled.

¶51

We heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly the petitioner obtained Ext.P1 judgment, wherein it i stated, inter alia, that the parties have agreed that the construction of the compound wall will be done at the expense of the petitioner and the petitioner will not cause any obstruction to the existing compound wall. The petitioner was directed to construct the compound wall within six months. On the one hand the case of the petitioner is that as the expenses is to be borne

¶52

W.P.(C).No. 6833 of 2010

¶53

by the petitioner, the compound wall is to be constructed in the property of the respondent. Learned counsel for the third respondent submits that there was no such agreement.

¶54

In the nature of the disputes, it will be appropriate for us to direct the official respondents to give protection to the petitioner as sought for. We make it clear that the parties are free to approach appropriate forum seeking appropriate orders.

¶55

Judge

¶56

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge

¶57

Mariyamma George v. Dist. Superintendent of Police & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariyamma George v. Dist. Superintendent of Police & Others

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

M/S.Sarasons Traders Vs the Superintendent of Police

Betty Santhosh Vs District Superintendent of Police

Navas M.S Vs the City Commissioner of Police

Joseph Vs Superintendent of Police,Kollam & Ors.

Abdul Kareem Vs the State of Kerala & Others

Jayaraj Vs Supdt of Police