Dismissed

Usha Devadas v. the Circle Inspector of Police

Kerala HC2 Jun 2011WP(C)/12755/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking police protection against alleged obstruction by co-owners in running an educational institution. The Court held the dispute to be purely civil in nature, pending before a partition suit in a lower court, and declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to resolve civil title or possession issues.

What did the court decide?

No directions were issued; the writ petition was dismissed as the dispute is civil in nature and pending before a civil court.

Usha Devadas Vs the Circle Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12755 of 2011(T)

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

-----------------------

¶7

1. K.P.USHA DEVADAS, W/O.DEVADAS, VAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMUDIYOOR, PATTAMBI, PALAGHAT DISTRICT.

¶8

2. DEVADAS V.P., VAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMUDIYOOR, PATTAMBI, PALAGHAT DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI. T. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

--------------------------

¶12

1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTABI POLICE STATION, PATTABI, PALGHAT, PIN-679303.

¶13

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTABI POLICE STATION, PATTABI, PALGHAT, PIN-679303.

¶14

3. MANIKANDAN @ BABU, S/O.KUTTAN NAIR, GEETHALAYAM, KOZHIKOOTTIRI, PALAGHAT, PIN-679303.

¶15

4. RADHA, D/O.RARU NAIR, THOZHIYAN, PALLYALIN, KOZHIKOOTTIRI, PALAGHAT, PIN-679303.

¶16

5. VESU, D/O.KUTTAN NAIR, GETHALAYAM, KOZHIKOOTTIRI, PALAGHAT, PIN-679303.

¶17

6. MADHAVI, THAZHATHETHIN, PERUMADIYOOR, KOZHIKOOTTIRI, PALAGHAT, PIN-679303.

¶18

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M.CHARISA R3 TO R6 BY ADVS. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

...2/-

¶22

WP(C).No. 12755 of 2011(T)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶25

EXT.P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶26

EXT.P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXT.P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.P5 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶31

EXT.R3(a) : PHOTOCOPY OF PLAINT IN OS NO. 190/2010 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PATTAMBI.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶36

WPC No.12755 of 2011 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 2^nd June, 2011

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Basant, J.

¶39

The petitioners had come to this Court claiming issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to afford protection for the person and property of the petitioner against the alleged illegal, culpable and contumacious act of respondents 3 to 6.

¶40

According to the petitioners, the second petitioner was the owner of the property in question. He had assigned his property to his wife - the first petitioner by Ext.P1 document dated 30.8.2010. The first petitioner is allegedly running an educational institution in the property. Respondents 3 to 6 are causing unjustifiable and illegal obstruction to the running of the school. It is not disputed that the 2^nd petitioner originally had rights over the property only as a co-owner. Complaints made to the police have not evoked any useful response and it is in these circumstances that the petitioners have come to this

¶41

WPC No.12755 of 2011 2

¶42

Court with this petition.

¶43

Respondents 3 to 6 have entered appearance through counsel. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners are attempting to steal a march over respondents 3 to 6 and other co-owners of the property. The second petitioner has no absolute title or possession over the property. He was in possession only as a coowner of the property along with other co-owners. The mischievous execution of Ext.P1 document by the second petitioner claiming to be the absolute owner will not vest any exclusive rights on the first petitioner, his wife. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 submits that a partition suit has already been filed and the same is pending before the Munsiff's Court, Pattambi. That suit is one for partition filed by another co-owner who has mischievously not been arrayed as a party in this petition. That co-owner has obtained interim orders also from the Court. Suppressing these facts, petitioners have been attempting to vex and harass respondents 4 to 6 by filing petitions before the police. In the petition before police the plaintiff in the partition suit was also arrayed as

¶44

WPC No.12755 of 2011 3

¶45

opposite party. This is purely a civil dispute between coowners and the petitioners have no right to arm themselves with an order of police protection. In the nature of the dispute, it is for the parties to seek appropriate directions from the civil court, contends the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6.

¶46

The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 1 and 2 submits that the dispute is purely a civil dispute between the co-owners and the police cannot obviously attempt to resolve such a complex dispute between the co-owners.

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been in exclusive possession of the property and that the rights, if any, of the other coowners have been lost by adverse possession and limitation.

¶48

We shall carefully avoid any expression of opinion on merits about the acceptability of the contentions of the rival contestants. Suffice it to say that we are satisfied that the dispute is one which cannot be resolved by the police. In exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of

¶49

WPC No.12755 of 2011 4

¶50

the Constitution, we do not think it necessary to issue any specific directions. Parties are already before the civil court and if any one of the co-owners wants to claim rights or exclusive rights in respect of the property and restrain the other co-owner from acting in any particular manner, it is for such co-owner to approach the civil court either in the pending suit or in any other suit to be filed claiming reliefs. We need only observe that we are not persuaded to invoke our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶51

This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed with the above observations.

¶52

sd/- R.BASANT JUDGE

¶53

sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE

¶54

css/

¶55

true copy

¶56

P.S.TO JUDGE

Usha Devadas v. the Circle Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Devadas v. the Circle Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tata Motors Finance Limited Vs Sri.Nazeer M. and Another

Mohammed Mamouth Matwally Ghali Vs Kerala Automobils Ltd.

Praveena Vs Pradeepan

Sri.Jimmy Jose Vs the Official Liquidator

Thankamma Narayanan @ Kutta Chirutha Vs the Circle Inspector of Police & Ors.

K.Gurudasan Vs Sub Inspector of Police and Others