Dismissed

Shalini Umesh Kumar v. the Deputy Superitend of Police

Kerala HC14 Mar 2011WP(C)/5424/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of two connected writ petitions seeking directions for police protection regarding property disputes. The Court held that since a civil suit was already pending, the parties should seek appropriate directions from the civil court, and no writ intervention was warranted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners dismissed; Court declined to issue directions under Article 226, leaving parties to the civil court.

Shalini Umesh Kumar Vs the Deputy Superitend 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

MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5424 of 2011(C) --------------------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S): ------------------------

¶6

SHALINI UMESH KUMAR, S/O.K.SANKARAN, SALEENAM, MELOODU P.O., PERINGANADU, ADOOR TALUK.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.HASSAN SMT.JULIA PRIYA RESHMY

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

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

¶10

1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ADOOR.PIN- 691 523

¶11

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADOOR.PIN-691 523

¶12

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADOOR.PIN-691 523

¶13

4. SAIGAL, AGED 32, S/O.SURENDRAN, SAIGAL BHAVANAM, MELOD P.O., PERINGANAD VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.691 523

¶14

5. SISIRA KUMAR, AGED 27, S/O.SURENDRAN, SAIGAL BHAVANAM, MELOD P.O., PERINGANAD VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.691 523

¶15

6. GEENAS, AGED 28, S/O.SURENDRAN, SAIGAL BHAVANAM, MELOD P.O., PERINGANAD VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.691 523

¶16

7. PRASANNA KUMAR, AGED 38, S/O.KAMALESANAN, SWARALAYA HOUSE, MELOD P.O., PLERINGANAD VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.PIN-691 523

¶17

8. SANTHOSH, AGED 34, SANTHOSH NIVAS, VALIYA PARAMBIL HOUSE, MELOD P.O., PERINGANAD VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.691 523

¶18

9. SHAN, AGED 25, S/O.GOPEENDRAN, MULAMOOTTIL THADATHIL, SHAN NIVAS, MELOD P.O., PEIRNGANAD VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.PIN-691 523

¶19

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 5810 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C)NO.5424/2011

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

P1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED

¶25

P2 COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT.

¶26

P3 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY TAHASILDAR, ADOOR IN APPLICATION NO.B17/2011/11/KDS.

¶27

P4 COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.115/2011.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶33

¶34

**W.P(C) No.5424 & 5810 of 2011 *******************************

¶35

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2011

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

BASANT, J.

¶38

These Writ Petitions are connected to each other and hence they are being taken up together for disposal. Documents are referred to as they are marked in W.P(c) No.5424 of 2011.

¶39

The petitioner in W.P(c) No.5424 of 2011 is the wife of a police personnel and the daughter of a retired police personnel. According to her, she has purchased 10 cents of land under Ext.P1 document dated 15.09.2010 from one Bhanu. She has obtained building permit Ext.P2. She has received Ext.P3 permission to fill up the property purchased by her. Respondents 4 to 9 are raising illegal obstructions against such construction authorised under Exts.P2 and P3. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection against respondents 4 to 9.

¶40

Respondents 4 and 5, it deserves to be noted, are the children of the petitioner in W.P(c) No.5810 of 2011. The

¶41

W.P(C) No.5424 & 5810 of 2011

¶42

petitioner in W.P(c) No.5810 of 2011 is not made a party to W.P(c) No.5424 of 2011. The defence raised by respondents 4 to 9 in W.P(c) No.5424 of 2011 are the averments (the very case) of the petitioner in W.P(c) No.5810 of 2011.

¶43

In W.P(c) No.5810 of 2011, Surendran, the father of respondents 4 and 5 in W.P(C) No.5424 of 2011 contends that he has purchased 14 cents of property from its owner, one Bhanu, who is arrayed as the 4^th respondent in W.P(c) No.5810 of 2011. After the petitioner purchased that property from the said Bhanu, the said Bhanu attempted to carry out illegal activities in the property remaining in his possession. The petitioner Surendran therefore was obliged to go to the civil court (Munsiff Court, Adoor) with a suit O.S.169 of 2009. An interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner Surendran in that suit. The 4^th respondent is bound by the said interim order now. (Plaint and interim order in that suit are produced as Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 in W.P(c) No.5810 of 2011).

¶44

According to Surendran, the said Bhanu has, pending the suit clandestinely transferred the property to the name of Shalini, the petitioner in W.P(c) No.5424 of 2011. The said Shalini is bound by the interim order passed against her

¶45

W.P(C) No.5424 & 5810 of 2011

¶46

transferor. Feigning ignorance about the order of injunction, W.P(c) No.5424 of 2011 has been filed by the said Salini. According to Surendran, the transferor Bhanu, is bound by the interim order. Shalini, the transferee, with the help of other respondents in W.P(c) No.5810 of 2011, is trying to carry illegal activities in the property contrary to the interim order. In these circumstances, it is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 in W.P(c) No.5810 of 2011 to afford police protection to the said Surendran.

¶47

There can perhaps be no dispute that the pendente lite transferee Shalini (petitioner in W.P(c) No.5424 of 2011) is bound by the interim order passed in the suit. The mere fact that there has been a transfer pending the litigation cannot help the transferor Bhanu or the transferee Shalini to avoid or disobey the interim order.

¶48

We have heard both the counsel. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are of the opinion that the parties must seek appropriate direction in the pending suit.

¶49

The petitioner in W.P(c) No.5424 of 2011 has a contention that there is some difference in the survey number

¶50

W.P(C) No.5424 & 5810 of 2011

¶51

shown in the plaint schedule in the suit and therefore the suit and the interim order do not relate to her property purchased by her from Bhanu.

¶52

An anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs persuade us to hold that this is not a fit case where this Court must invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 and issue any direction for police protection. The parties are already before the civil court and it is for them to seek appropriate directions from the civil court. The petitioner in W.P(c) No.5424 of 2011, Salini (the 5^th respondent in W.P(c) No.5810 of 2011) submits that she has not been arrayed as a party in Ext.P1 suit. The transfer in her favour was after the filing of the suit and a transferee pendente lite is certainly bound by the orders passed against the transferor. It is certainly for the petitioner to get impleaded in the suit filed against her predecessor and seek modification of the interim order if necessary. The learned counsel for the petitioner Surendran submits that he has already taken steps to implead the transferee pendente lite Salini as a party to the pending suit. We are of the opinion that no directions under Article 226 of the Constitution deserve to be issued and the parties must be left to seek appropriate directions

¶53

W.P(C) No.5424 & 5810 of 2011

¶54

from the civil court where the very same dispute is pending.

¶55

With the above observations, both the Writ Petitions

¶56

are dismissed.

¶57

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶58

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶59

rtr/

Shalini Umesh Kumar v. the Deputy Superitend of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shalini Umesh Kumar v. the Deputy Superitend 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

The Secretary, Kannamangalam West Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Satheesan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Karunagappa

Pothen Thomas Vs Dy.Supdt.of Police

C.M.Narayanan Vs C.G.Babu

July Sumaraj Vs Director General of Police

Sudheer Vs Circle Inspector of Police