Allowed

Komalam Rajani v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC30 May 2011WP(C)/7338/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Kerala made the interim order of 1.4.2011 absolute, directing State respondents to protect the petitioner and other legal heirs from interference by the fourth respondent regarding property possession, as the underlying civil dispute was resolved.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 1.4.2011 made absolute protecting petitioner and other legal heirs from fourth respondent's interference.

Komalam Rajani Vs State of Kerala and Others — 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 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 7338 of 2011(N)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

KOMALAM RANAJI, OF PUTHEN VEEDU, CHITTILANCHERY, ALATHUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DOOR NO-27, DEVI KARUMARIAMMAN NAGAR, 4TH STREET, E.V.P.PREBHU'S AVENUE,PURANIPUTHUR P.O, CHENNAI-602 101.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMNET, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM – 695 001.

¶14

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678 001.

¶15

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLANGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678 001.

¶16

4. SUBRAHMANIAN, S/O.KASU, PANAGATTIRI,MANNATHUPARA, ELAVANCHERRY VILLAGE, ELAVANCHERRY P.O., CHITTOOR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678 001.

¶17

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C). NO.7338/2011-N:

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 15/12/2009 IN R.S.A. NO.688/2009.

¶23

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE DELIVERY REPORT DTD. 22/09/2009 IN E.A. NO. 117/2009 IN O.S. NO. 234/2002 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHITTOOR.

¶24

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE C.M.P. NO. 9251/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, CHITTUR.

¶25

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 377/2010 DTD. 03/12/2010 REGISTERED BY KOLLENGODE POLICE.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶31

WPC No.7338 of 2011

¶32

Dated this the 30^th May, 2011

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Basant, J.

¶35

The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of late Narayanankutty Nair. Along with the other legal heirs, consequent to the death of her father on 19.3.2000, she has stepped into the shoes of her deceased father. The fourth respondent's father was allegedly managing the properties of late Narayanankutty Nair and was thus exercising the right of management of the property on behalf of the said Narayanankutty Nair. As the fourth respondent and others objected to the enjoyment of the property by the legal heirs of late Narayanankutty Nair, they filed a suit claiming injunction as also recovery of possession. Decree for recovery of possession has been granted and confirmed by the Appellate Court. The Second Appellate Court has dismissed the challenge in limine by Ext.P1 judgment. Subsequently, delivery of the property has been effected under Ext.P2. Execution

¶36

WPC No.7338 of 2011 2

¶37

proceedings are now complete without any challenge. According to the petitioner, she and the other legal heirs are thus in possession and enjoyment of the property as rightful owners after Ext.P2 without any dispute.

¶38

According to the petitioner, there has been subsequent attempts by the fourth respondent to interfere with their possession and to trespass into the property. Ext.P3 complaint was filed. It was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Ext.P4 is the FIR. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent is obstructing the enjoyment of the property notwithstanding the decree and delivery effected. He is threatening and intimidating the petitioner. The petitioner and the other legal heirs of deceased Narayanankutty Nair apprehend danger to their life and property at the hands of the fourth respondent. It is with these averments that this petition has been filed.

¶39

The fourth respondent has been served. But the fourth respondent has not entered appearance. When the matter came up for hearing on 1.4.2011, an interim direction was issued directing respondents 1 to 3,

¶40

“to afford protection for the petitioner's life

¶41

WPC No.7338 of 2011 3

¶42

and property against the fourth respondent and his men.”

¶43

Today when the matter came up for hearing, there is no representation for the fourth respondent. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that investigation has been completed in Ext.P4 and final report/charge sheet has already been filed against the fourth respondent.

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioner in these circumstances prays that this petition may be allowed and the interim order dated 1.4.2011 may be made absolute. The learned counsel submits that it may be clarified that not the petitioner alone, but the other legal heirs of Narayanankutty Nair who were co-plaintiffs along with the petitioner in O.S.No.234 of 2002 are also entitled to the advantage of the order.

¶45

We have considered all the relevant inputs. In the light of Exts.P1 and P2, we are certainly of the opinion that civil dispute has been resolved finally and ultimately. The fourth respondent has evidently no right to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.234 of 2002

¶46

WPC No.7338 of 2011 4

¶47

after Ext.P2 delivery.

¶48

We are in these circumstances satisfied that the

¶49

interim order dated 1.4.2011 can be made absolute making it clear that the other legal heirs, i.e. all plaintiffs

¶50

in O.S.No.234 of 2002 are also entitled to the advantage

¶51

of the order. We do so. This petition is hence allowed.

¶52

sd/- R.BASANT

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE

¶55

css/ true copy

¶56

P.S.TO JUDGE

Komalam Rajani v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Komalam Rajani v. State of Kerala and 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

Indus Towers Ltd. Vs the S.I. of Police, Alappuzha

Shaji Mathew Vs the S.I. of Police, Mannar and Others

Indus Towers Ltd. & Another Vs the S.I of Police, Pattanakkad & Ors.

Shri K.Vinod Kumar Vs Jyoman Builders (P) Ltd. (in Liquidation)

C.K.Geetha Vs Si of Police

Indus Towers Ltd. Vs the Superintendent of Police