The High Court dismissed a writ petition for police protection against respondents claiming possession of premises. The Court held that property disputes must be resolved in civil court, noting the petitioners attempted to use police protection to retain possession of the property.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
THURSDAY ,THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 29888 of 2018
PETITIONER/S:
1 PRASHANTH AGED 37 YEARS S/O. VINAYAKAN, MALAVEEDU, PUTHUVYPU, KOCHI NOW AT 6/400C, PAKKATHUPARAMBIL, MANNAMTHURUTHU, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PIN - 683 517.
2 KEERTHANA AGED 34 YEARS W/O.PRASHANTH, MALAVEEDU, PUTHUVYPU, KOCHI, NOW AT 6/400C, PAKKATHUPARAMBIL, MANNAMTHURUTHU, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PIN - 683 517.
BY ADVS. SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK SRI.S.A.ANAND
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SHYNI AGED 53 YEARS W/O. ANTONY, PAKKATHUPARAMBIL, MANNAMTHURUTHU, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PIN - 683 517.
2 ANTONY AGED 55 YEARS S/O.XAVIER, PAKKATHUPARAMBIL, MANNAMTHURUTHU, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PIN - 683 517.
WP(C)No.29888/2018
::2::
3 ANEESH AGED 25 YEARS S/O.ANTONY, PAKKATHUPARAMBIL, MANNAMTHURUTHU, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PIN - 683 517.
4 KUNJOOTTAN AGED 35 YEARS SON-IN-LAW OF ANTONY, PAKKATHUPARAMBIL, MANNAMTHURUTHU, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PIN - 683 517.
5 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF ERNAKULAM RURAL, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, ALUVA.
6 STATION HOUSE OFFICER VARAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, VARAPPUZHA.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.L.DEVADAS N.S.AJAY SRI.SANTHOSH T.S. SRI.V.A.VINOD
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI P P THAJUDHEEN SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)No.29888/2018
::3::
J U D G M E N T
Vinod Chandran, J
The petitioners were before this Court seeking police protection from the illegal and highhanded action of the respondents 1 to 4. An interim order was sought; for police protection to the life of the petitioners and to take necessary action against respondent 1 to 4 in accordance with law so as to ensure peaceful residence of the petitioners in the premises in question. In fact we find that the interim relief goes far beyond the final relief sought. The reliefs as sought for in the memorandum was only for protection of life and limb. By the aforestated interim relief what was sought was a protection against the possession of
WP(C)No.29888/2018
::4::
the property; to which the party respondents also stake a claim.
2. At the time of admission when notice was issued, the learned Senior Government Pleader had specifically pointed out to the Court that the version of the petitioners that they were residing in the building in question is correct and that as per the enquiry there was some arrangement to have the property sold to the petitioners by the owner. As to the merits of the case, the Division Bench refused to commend but directed protection to the life and limb of the petitioners. We have to notice that the Division Bench specifically did
not grant the prayer for peaceful residence of the petitioners.
3. The respondents 1 to 4 then appeared and
contended that they were in possession of the premises. They had also filed O.S No.511/2018
WP(C)No.29888/2018
::5::
before the Munsiffs Court, North Paravur, in which an injunction issued restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the possession of the property. This belies the submission of the police that the petitioners were in possession. Respondents 1 to 4 also alleged that Ext.P1 document is forged. The petitioners then filed two I.As; I.A No.1/2018 for acceptance of certain documents and I.A No.2/2018 for direction to comply with the interim order dated 10.09.2018. A Division Bench of this Court on 27.09.2018 found that I.A No.2/2018 is not maintainable. The objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 that there is suppression of material facts, was also recorded. Subsequently, the respondent had filed I.A No.3/2018 seeking examination of Ext.P1 document by an expert. We are of the opinion that as of now when there is a
WP(C)No.29888/2018
::6::
civil suit filed by the respondents 1 to 4, the parties have to agitate their grievances before the Civil Court. There is no scope for any police protection. As we found, the attempt of the petitioners, was to retain or obtain possession of the property in the guise of a police protection.
4. We are of the opinion that the writ
petition has to be dismissed. We do so. We direct that the injunction order passed by the Civil Court will be complied with by both parties till such time it is in force. The police will also ensure that there is no law and order situation created.
Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/K. Vinod Chandran, Judge
jma
Sd/Ashok Menon, Judge
WP(C)No.29888/2018
::7::
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 26/04/2018.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.2275/1991 OF ALANGAD SRO. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 13/02/2015. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION NO.115239/2018 DATED 6/9/2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT OF THE PETITION NO.115239/2018 DATED 6/9/2018 OF ALUVA SDPO. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE OF WATER CHARGES DATED 16/05/2018. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY CHARGES AND WATER CHARGES. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CASUALTY REGISTRATION CARD DATED 09/09/2018.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CASUALTY REGISTRATION CARD OF GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, KALAMASSERY DATED 09/09/2018.
WP(C)No.29888/2018
::8::
EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAIN DATED 18/9/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPYOF THE RECEIPT DATED 18/9/2018 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can grant police protection in a dispute over property possession.
Whether the petitioners' attempt to obtain police protection for possession of the property was legitimate.
Whether civil disputes regarding property possession must be adjudicated by civil courts.
Prashant
Keerthana
Shyni
Antony
Aneesh
Kunjoottan
K.Vinod Chandran
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
K.Vinod Chandran and Ashok Menon
Parties & counsel
