Allowed

Yesudasan v. Ressalamma @ Victorial Ressalamma

Kerala HC10 Jul 2019WP(C)/13964/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners complained that the Police failed to enforce a Civil Court injunction restraining respondents from trespassing on their property. The Court affirmed the Police duty to assist the Civil Court in enforcing subsisting injunctions, provided no conflicting orders in an ongoing appeal exist.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed, reiterating the duty of the Police to ensure compliance of the subsisting civil court injunction order.

Yesudasan Vs Ressalamma @ Victorial Ressalamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶7

WP(C). No.13964 of 2019

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 YESUDASAN AGED 65 YEARS S/O.YAGAPPAN NADAR, Y.N. BHAVAN, VETTUVILAKAM, VENKADAMBU DESOM, VENKADAMBU (PO), KULATHOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 506.

¶10

2 DEVADASAN, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.YAGAPPAN NADAR, DAS COTTAGE, KAVUMOKHAM, VENKADAMBU DESOM, VENKADAMBU (PO), KULATHOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 506.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.RAHUL RAJ SRI.V.ANIRUDHAN NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 RESSALAMMA @ VICTORIAL RESSALAMMA AGED 63 YEARS W/O.GENESAN, RESIDING AT PAZHOORKONAM (THUNDUVILAKAM PURAYIDAM), VENKADAMBU DESOM, VENKADAMBU (PO), KULATHOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 506.

¶14

2 AYYAPPAN, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.SREEDHARAN, RESIDING AT PAZHOORKONAM VEEDU, VENKADAMBU DESOM, VENKADAMBU (PO), KULATHOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 506.

¶15

WP(C). No.13964 of 2019

¶16

¶17

3 USHA

¶18

AGED 40 YEARS W/O.AYYAPPAN, RESIDING AT PAZHOORKONAM VEEDU, VENKADAMBU DESOM, VENKADAMBU (PO), KULATHOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 506.

¶19

4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POZHIYOOR POLICE STATION, POZHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -695 513.

¶20

5 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 121.

¶21

6 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 033.

¶22

BY SR.GP.SRI.P.P.THAJUDHEEN

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

¶26

The petitioners were before this Court complaining that repeated orders of the Civil Court has not motivated the Police to ensure its due compliance. Ext.P2 is the order of injunction, which restrained the defendants therein, who are the party respondents herein, from trespassing into plaint A & B schedule properties and from cutting open a new pathway through the eastern side of the plaint schedule properties. The defendants were also restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties until disposal of the suit.

¶27

2. On violation of the injunction order,

¶28

the petitioners again approached the Munsiff's Court, in which Ext.P3 order was passed directing the 4^th respondent-Police to take appropriate action. Since that was not complied with, again an

¶29

order was passed at Ext.P7 directing the 5^th respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police to take action, which also was not complied with.

¶30

3. At the admission stage, we directed the

¶31

WP(C). No.13964 of 2019 4

¶32

5^th respondent to file an affidavit explaining why adequate measures were not taken to comply with Ext.P7 order passed by the Addl. Munsiff-II, Neyyattinkara. An affidavit was filed citing as a reason the Lok Sabha elections and there was an undertaking that the Police would implement the

¶33

order passed by the Addl. Munsiff-II, Neyyattinkara. Later the order was implemented and the Police had taken appropriate action. The petitioners had started cultivation also in the property.

¶34

4. The respondents allege that

¶35

there is CMA filed against the order of injunction. However, no contention is taken as to a stay order having been passed. In such circumstances, as the injunction of the Civil Court subsists, the Police is duty bound to extent protection and aid the proper compliance of such orders, which the civil court has directed.

¶36

WP(C). No.13964 of 2019

¶37

¶38

The writ petition would stand allowed reiterating the duty of the Police, but subject to any orders passed in the CMA or the final disposal of the suit. No order as to costs.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

V.G. ARUN, JUDGE

sp/10/07/19

//True Copy//

P.A. To Judge

WP(C). No.13964 of 2019

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶50

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PLANT IN OS NO.950/2018 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT-11, NEYYATTINKARA.

¶51

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT-11 NEYYATTINKARA IN I.A NO.4441/2018 IN O.S NO.950/2018 DATED 17.01.2019.

¶52

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT-11 NEYYATTINKARA IN I.A NO.6014/2018 IN O.S NO.950/2018 DATED 23.02.2019.

¶53

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.03.2019.

¶54

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.03.2019.

¶55

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN IA NO.2358/2019 IN O.S NO.950/2018.

¶56

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT-11, NEYYATTINKARA IN IA NO.2358/2019 IN O.S NO.950/2018 DATED 05.04.2019.

¶57

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.05.2019.

Yesudasan v. Ressalamma @ Victorial Ressalamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yesudasan v. Ressalamma @ Victorial Ressalamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ismail.C.K. Vs Cochin Univerfsity of Science and Tgechonology

Hariharanandanaswami Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed.K Vs State of Kerala

Mahatma Gandhi University Vs Dr. Rachel George M

Josco Rubber (Pondy) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Inspector Generalof Police

Prasanna Anilkumar Vs the District Police Chief