Disposed

Palakkal Kunhi Muhammed v. the Circle Inspector of Police

Kerala HC19 Oct 2020WP(C)/16615/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition concerns alleged obstruction of a petitioner by his brother in visiting their elderly mother. The High Court found conflicting assertions regarding the mother's residence and noted that the brother asserted no objection to visits. The dispute was characterized as a civil property issue suitable for civil court intervention rather than police action.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach civil court regarding pathway dispute. Police to act if genuine law and order complaint filed.

Palakkal Kunhi Muhammed Vs the Circle… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 27TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.16615 OF 2020(B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PALAKKAL KUNHI MUHAMMED, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.KUNHI POKKER HAJI, PALAKKAL HOUSE, VARANAKKARA, KANMANAM P.O., KALPAKANCHERY VIA., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 551.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SRI.K.V.WINSTON

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALPAKANCHERY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 551.

¶11

2 PALAKKAL ABDU RAHIMAN, S/O.KUNHI POKKER HAJI, PALAKKAL HOUSE, VARANAKKARA, KANMANAM P.O., KALPAKANCHERY VIA, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 551.

¶12

R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶13

SRI K.P HARISH, SR GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.16615 OF 2020(B) 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

~~~~~~~~

¶18

The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are brothers. The petitioner

¶19

states that his mother, who is aged about 80 years old, is staying with the 2nd respondent at the Tarwad home. Whenever the petitioner makes an attempt to visit her, the 2nd respondent comes in between and raises threats and obstructs him. Left with no alternative the petitioner submitted a complaint before the 1st respondent. When no action was taken, he has approached this Court with this petition seeking issuance of directions to the police to secure his life and property.

¶20

The 2nd respondent has filed a counter wherein, he states that there are property disputes between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. He contends that the petitioner tried to cut open a pathway through the property owned by the wife of the 2nd respondent and their deceased brother. The 2nd respondent interfered and the petitioner was duly informed that he has no such right. With a view to create a way, the petitioner has filed this petition is the contention. He would then state that his aged mother is in fact residing with Abdul Nazar, another brother of the parties in the Tarwad house whereas the 2nd respondent is residing elsewhere. He would also state that the 2nd respondent has no objection in the petitioner visiting his mother in the Tarwad house and he asserts that he shall not create any obstruction if the petitioner wishes so.

¶21

I have considered the submissions advanced and I have gone

¶22

through the records.

¶23

WP(C).No.16615 OF 2020(B) 3

¶24

In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, who is none other than the brother of the petitioner, he asserts that his mother is residing with Abdul Nazar in the Tarwad house and that the 2nd respondent is residing elsewhere. The said assertion is not denied by the petitioner by filing a reply affidavit. The 2nd respondent has also stated that he is residing with his family in a different building and his only contention is that the attempt of the petitioner is to cut open a new pathway. This appears to be a dispute between siblings with regard to usage of a pathway and from the submissions, it is evident that they are all residing in close vicinity. Now that the 2nd respondent has stated that he has no intention to obstruct the petitioner in visiting their mother, the petitioner cannot have any further grievance. If the dispute is with regard to usage of a pathway, it is for the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court and seek reliefs. However, it is made clear that if any law and order situation arises and if the petitioner lodges a complaint before the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent shall ascertain the genuineness of the same and shall act accordingly.

¶25

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Sru

¶30

WP(C).No.16615 OF 2020(B) 4

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶33

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE RELATING TO THE ABOVE PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALAVANNUR VILLAGE DATED AUGUST 7, 2020. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED JUNE 15, 2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶34

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

Palakkal Kunhi Muhammed v. the Circle Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palakkal Kunhi Muhammed v. the Circle 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

Jessy Roy, Vs the District Collector

T. T. Abdul Gafoor Vs M. Kuttimammad

Indus Towers Limited Vs the Station House Officer

Sivaraman V.P. Vs the Secretary, the Regional Transport Authority

P. K. Nazer Vs State of Kerala

Bijo Jose, Vs the Regional Transport Authority