Disposed

Tomy v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC17 Mar 2014WP(C)/30774/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought police protection to remove rubber trees based on a right deriving from the 4th respondent. The Court held that since a civil suit involving status quo and an undertaking by the 4th respondent is pending, granting police protection would interfere with civil rights. The writ was disposed of without deciding on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; parties directed to seek intervention of the Civil Court regarding the status quo and undertaking.

Tomy Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/26TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 30774 of 2013 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

TOMY, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.ALEX, PARAKANDATHIL HOUSE, PULLATTUKUNNEL BHAGOM, ILANGULAM KARA, ILANGULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RANJIT (KOTTAYAM), SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

**1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNDAKAYAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN- 686 513. (CORRECTED)

¶11

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶12

*KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN- 686 507. (CORRECTED)

¶13

*** NAMES OF R1 & R2 CORRECTED AS**

¶14

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLICKATHODU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM.

¶15

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAMPADY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM.

¶16

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO.950/2014 DATED 03/02/2014.

¶17

3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN- 686 507.

¶18

4. THRESIAMMA FRANCIS, W/O.LATE BINSON, MARANKUZHIYIL HOUSE, LAKATTOOR KARA, KOOROPADA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM, PIN- 686 525.

¶19

5. JASON @ KUNJUMON, S/O.M.T. JOSEPH, MARAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, ANIKKADU P.O., PALLIKATHODU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN- 686 503.

¶20

R1 TO R3 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER MR.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE. R5 BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

rs.

¶23

WP(C).No. 30774 of 2013 (V)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶26

EXHIBIT-P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 08.11.2013
	EXECUTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE
	THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶28

EXT.R5A	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/01/2014 IN I.A. NO.21/2014 IN A.S. NO.285/2013 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-II (SPECIAL), KOTTAYAM.
EXT.R5B	COPY OF THE INTRIM APPLICATION I.A. NO.21/2014 IN A.S. NO.285/2013 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-II (SPECIAL), KOTTAYAM WHEREIN EXHIBIT R5(A) ORDER IS PASSED.
EXT.R5C	COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN IN A.S. NO.285/2013 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-II (SPECIAL), KOTTAYAM.
EXT.R5D	COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.554/2006 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM (LATER RENUMBERED AS O.S. NO.27/2013 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM).

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

Manjula Chellur, C.J. & A.M. Shaffique, J.

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C) No. 30774 OF 2013

¶35

- - - - Dated this the 17^th day of March, 2014

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Manjula Chellur, C.J.

¶38

Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for 4^th respondent and 5^th respondent.

¶39

Petitioner is before us contending that he has

¶40

paid a consideration of `8 lakhs for entering into a contract with 4^th respondent for slaughter tapping, cutting and removing rubber trees situated in the land in question. The right claimed by petitioner is traced to a right in favour of 4^th respondent. If the right of the 4^th respondent has reached finality, anyone claiming under 4^th respondent can trace to that right.

¶41

In the above circumstances, the suit filed by 5^th respondent and the suit filed by 4^th respondent are now the subject matter of two appeals. One appeal is pending before the High Court so far as decree and judgment in the suit filed by 5^th respondent pertaining to specific performance of a

¶42

WP(C) No. 30774 of 2013

¶43

-:2:-

¶44

contract. So far as the suit filed by 4^th respondent against 5^th respondent which is pending before the Additional District Court, Kottayam was for a permanent injunction. According to 4^th respondent, the property belongs to her late husband. But according to 5^th respondent who is none other than the brother of 4^th respondent's late husband, it is a sham transaction.

¶45

We will not go into the merits or demerits of the respective stand of the parties in the civil suit. The fact remains, 4^th respondent has given an undertaking before Additional District Court, Kottayam that she will not cut and remove the rubber trees standing in the property in question. In the light of such undertaking we fail to understand what freedom the petitioner could have to cut and remove the rubber trees after slaughtering. Unless such clarification is obtained from the Court where the order of status quo and undertaking of 4^th respondent is pending, we are of the opinion, by granting police protection to the licence holder claiming his right under 4^th respondent would be nothing but interfering with the civil rights of the parties. It is open to the 4^th respondent and also the

¶46

WP(C) No. 30774 of 2013

¶47

-:3:-

¶48

petitioner to seek intervention of Civil Court having regard to the situation they are placed in.

¶49

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is

¶50

disposed of.

¶51

Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.

¶52

A.M. Shaffique, Judge.

¶53

ttb/17/03

Tomy v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tomy v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

C.T.Chacko Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CIRCLE-1(1)

M/S Amar Timber Traders Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/S.Hotel & Allied Trades Pvt.Ltd Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I (1) Ernakulam

M/S Trinity Arcade Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assist Commissioner of Police Commissioner'S Office Thrikkakara

Chandrika Shaji Vs Sub Inspector of Police