The High Court dismissed a writ petition alleging police interference in a property dispute between siblings. The Court held that the dispute is civil in nature and must be resolved by the civil court, closing the writ petition.
The writ petition stands closed.
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 V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1941
WP(C).No.10933 OF 2018(N)
PETITIONER/S:
MUBARAK BEEGUM
D/O. LATE ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEELIPARA, KOZHINJAMPARA.P.O.,CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENT/S:
KOZHINJAMPARA, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD-678101.
3 BASHA
S/O. LATE ABDUL KAREEM, RESIDING AT NEELIPARA,KOZHINJAMPARA.P.O.,CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD-678555.
4 FARIDA W/O. BASHA, RESIDING AT NEELIPARA, KOZHINJAMPARA.P.O., CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD-678555.
OTHER PRESENT:
GP. SMT. RAJI T. BHASKER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.10933 OF 2018(N)
2
JUDGMENT
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
The petitioner and respondent No.3 are siblings. The 4th respondent is the wife of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner submits that respondents 3 and 4 were permitted to stay in the property which absolutely belongs to her and another sister. The complaint in the writ petition is that the police have been constantly summoning the petitioner and directing of handover the property to respondents 3 and 4. Admittedly, there was a civil suit filed. We are not sure as to whether the same has been disposed of or not.
Considering the entire circumstances, we are of the opinion
WP(C).No.10933 OF 2018(N)
3
that the disputes existing between the siblings have to be resolved by a civil court. The writ petition would stand closed.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
shg
JUDGE
WP(C).No.10933 OF 2018(N)
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| EXT.P1. | TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 1650/2009 DATED 28-10-2009 AT THE CHITTUR SRO. |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2. | TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 444/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF MUNSIFF, CHITTUR. |
| EXT.P3. | TRUE COPY WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 28-2-2017 FILED BY DEFENDANTS 3 AND 4 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR. |
| EXT.P4. | TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 30/2017 FILED BEFORE THE COURT OF MUNSIFF CHITTUR. |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the police should have intervened to further the property dispute between siblings.
Whether the allegations of police summoning the petitioner constitute a legitimate police action or encroachment into civil domain.
Whether the writ petition calling for judicial intervention in a civil property dispute should be allowed.
Mubarak Beequm
Sub Inspector of Police
Sub Inspector of Police Vanitha Cell
Basha
Farida
GP. SMT. Raji T. Bhasker
K. Vinod Chandran
V. G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
