Dismissed

Vijayan Pillai & Another v. the Superintendent of Police & Ors.

Kerala HC23 May 2011WP(C)/8983/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking police protection from life and property threats and adjudication of property rights. The Court, accepting the government pleader's submission that the perceived threat was nonexistent and property disputes required civil resolution, dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vijayan Pillai & Another Vs the Superintendent of Police… — Domestic Violence | 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 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 8983 of 2011(W)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

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

¶8

1. VIJAYAN PILLAI, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.LATE VASU PILLAI, VIJAYA BHAVAN, PONAKAM MURI, THEKKEKARAVILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

2. MANIYAMMA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.VIJAYAN PILLAI, VIJAYA BHAVAN, PONAKAM MURI, THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN

¶11

SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

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

¶14

1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001.

¶15

2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR, CHENGANNUR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689 121.

¶16

3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKARA, MAVELIKARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 101.

¶17

4. S.I. OF POLICE, MAVELIKARA, MAVELIKARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 101.

¶18

...2/-

¶19

WP(C).No. 8983 of 2011(W) -2-

¶20

5. RENJITH VIJAYAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN PILLAI, VIJAYA BHAVAN POONAKAM MURI, THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 101.

¶21

6. DEEPTHI, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.RENJITH VIJAYAN, VIJAYA BHAVAN, POONAKAM MURI, THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 101.

¶22

R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA R5 & R6 BY ADVS. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

...2/-

¶26

WP(C).No. 8983 of 2011(W)

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DT. 02.09.1996.

¶30

EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 256/2010 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKARA.

¶31

EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 595/2009 OF MAVELIKARA POLICE STATION.

¶32

EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 309/2010 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKARA.

¶33

EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 13.10.2010 OF THE HONOURABLE JFCM-I, MAVELIKARA IN M.C.NO. 127/2010.

¶34

EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE DOMESTIC INCIDENT REPORT FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE JFCM-I, MAVELIKARA IN M.C. NO. 129/2010.

¶35

EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 10.1.2011.

¶36

EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE SON-IN-LAW OF THE PETITIONER DT. 9.1.2011 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶37

EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 4.3.3009.

¶38

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶43

W.P(C) NO:8983 OF 2011W

¶44

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 23^rd May, 2011.

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

Basant, J.

¶47

Petitioners are spouses. Fifth respondent is their son and the sixth respondent is their daughter-in-law i.e the wife of the fifth respondent.

¶48

According to the petitioners there is threat to their life and property. They seek issue of directions to respondents 1 to 4 to afford protection for the life, person and property of the petitioners. Respondents 5 and 6 have entered appearance through counsel. The prayer is opposed. The learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 submits that there is a dispute regarding the exclusive rights of the petitioners over the property in question. A partition deed is relied upon by the petitioners to found their claim for their right to property. The fifth respondent has not executed such partition deed. The partition deed has been challenged before Court. Dispute regarding property or the validity of the partition deed cannot be decided in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. Parties may be

¶49

WPC 8983/2011 2

¶50

directed to seek remedy from the Civil Court regarding properties. No directions may be issued under Art.226 which may have a bearing on the question raised before the Civil Court.

¶51

So far as the alleged threat to the life of the petitioners are concerned, counsel for respondents 5 and 6 undertake that they shall not indulge in any contumacious and culpable acts against the person or life of the petitioners. Petitioners are attempting to steal a march by raising allegations of existence of threat to their lives. The categoric undertaking of respondents 5 and 6 may be recorded that there shall not be threat whatsoever against the person or life of the petitioners. But disputes regarding property shall have to be decided by resort to the legal process before Civil Courts, submits the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6.

¶52

The learned Govt. Pleader after taking instruction submits that in the perception of police officials i.e respondents 1 to 4, there is no threat to the life of the petitioners. There are property disputes and the parties have to seek appropriate directions from the Civil Court. If there be any threat against the life of the petitioners, necessary and needful action in accordance with law shall be taken by respondents 1 to 4.

¶53

WPC 8983/2011

¶54

¶55

Petitioners shall be at liberty to complain of any such threat and if such complaint is found to be genuine, needful and necessary action shall be taken by the police, submits the learned Govt. Pleader.

¶56

We accept the submissions of the learned Govt. Pleader. We do not perceive any threat to the life of the petitioners now. We do not think it necessary to issue any directions regarding the property disputes between the parties.

¶57

Accepting the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader this writ petition is dismissed.

¶58

R.BASANT Judge

¶59

K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

WPC 8983/2011

Dated this the 12^th April, 2011

¶64

O R D E R

¶65

Basant, J.

¶66

Failure report of the Mediator is received. Call on 23-5-2011. Show the name of the counsel for the party respondents also in the cause title on that date.

¶67

WPC 8983/2011

¶68

¶69

K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

WPC 8983/2011

Dated this the 22^nd March, 2011.

¶74

O R D E R

¶75

Basant, J.

¶76

Heard. Admitted. Notice given and the learned Govt. Pleader appears for respondents 1 to 4. Issue notice to respondents 5 and 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays and is accordingly permitted to take out notice to respondents 5 and 6 by special messenger. Verify service and call on 29-3-2011.

¶77

R.BASANT

¶78

Judge

¶79

K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶80

¶81

WPC 8983/2011 7

Vijayan Pillai & Another v. the Superintendent of Police & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vijayan Pillai & Another v. the Superintendent of Police & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.K.Mathew Vs the Dy.Superintendent of Police,Pala

Neyyattinkara Taluk Integrated Powerloom Vs the Superintendent of Police

Velayudhan Vs D.Raja Sankaran

Kseb & Others Vs Smt.Sibitha Chandran & Others

Abul Rahman Vs the Sub Inspector of Police and Another

Vinu and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others