Kerala High Court
V.Ramachandran vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 13 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.28851 OF 2019(F)
PETITIONER:
V.RAMACHANDRAN,
AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O.LATE KRISHNASWAMI GOUNDER, CHEERAKADAVU,
PUDOOR P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
SMT.T.V.NEEMA
RESPONDENTS:
1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
AGALI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 581.
2 CHELLY,
D/O.NANCHI, CHEERAKADAVU OORU, PUDOOR P.O.,
PADAVAYAL VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 555.
3 MARI,
D/O.NANCHI, CHEERAKADAVU OORU, PUDOOR P.O.,
PADAVAYAL VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 555.
4 NANCHI,
D/O.NANCHI, CHEERAKADAVU OORU, PUDOOR P.O.,
PADAVAYAL VILLAE, MANNARKKAD TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 555.
5 KALI,
S/O.NANCHI, CHEERAKADAVU OORU, PUDOOR P.O.,
PADAVAYAL VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 555.
WP(C).No.28851 OF 2019 2
6 SELVAN,
CHEERAKADAVU OORU, PUDOOR P.O., PADAVAYAL VILLAGE,
MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 582.
R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SANDEEP
SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.28851 OF 2019 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner along with his siblings and mother are the owners
in title and possession of property having an extent of 2 Acres and 61
cents in Re-Sy. No.751/1 of Pudoor Amsom Desom. He contends that
his late father had approached the jurisdictional Civil Court and had
instituted O.S. No.23 of 2011 seeking a permanent prohibitory
injunction restraining the party respondents herein, who were the
defendants in the said Suit from trespassing into the property or
causing any obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment. As
the father of the petitioner expired pending proceedings, the petitioner
and other legal heirs got themselves impleaded and proceeded with the
Suit. It is contended that the Suit was decreed as prayed for as is
evident from Ext.P1 judgment and Ext.P2 decree. When the party
respondents violated the order of injunction, the petitioner filed an
application seeking execution. A Commissioner was appointed and he
was also obstructed. The petitioner states that despite having a decree
in his favour, the party respondents are preventing the petitioner from
carrying out agricultural operations. It is in the afore circumstances that
the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the 1st
respondent to afford adequate protection to the life and property of the
petitioner from any threats by respondents 2 to 6 and their men.
2. The petitioner states that during the pendency of the
proceedings, the learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, had directed
the Station House Officer, Agaly, to provide adequate and effective
protection to the petitioner on 14.6.2020 and 15.6.2020 and later by a
separate order on 22.10.2020 and 23.10.2020. According to the
petitioner, despite such orders passed by the learned Munsiff, the
respondents are still persisting with their threats.
3. I have heard Sri. Mohanakannan, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri. T.K.Sandeep, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 and Sri. P.P.Thajudeen, the
learned Government Pleader.
4. The records reveal that the petitioner has obtained a decree in
his favour. When he attempted to execute the decree, obstructions
were caused by the party respondents. A Commissioner Advocate was
appointed who has reported that when he attempted to visit the
property to prepare the report, he was obstructed by the party
respondents. The learned Munsiff has considered all the relevant
aspects and have observed that in view of the decree passed in favour
of the petitioner, the party respondents have no right to obstruct the
petitioner from cultivating the property. The learned Munsiff has also
taken note of the violent activities carried out by the party respondents
at the time of visit of the Commissioner Advocate. As held by this Court
in Baby v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Attingal and Ors. 1,
the parties cannot be permitted to flout the orders of the Civil Court and
frustrate the attempts of the decree-holder to get the benefits of the
decree.
5. Having considered all the relevant facts, I direct the 1st
respondent to afford adequate protection to the life and property of the
petitioner and to ensure that no obstruction is caused by the party
respondents to the efforts of the petitioner to carry out the cultivation in
the property covered under Exts.P1 and P2.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
ps/26/1/2021 JUDGE
1[2019 (4) KHC 660]
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OS 23/2011 OF
MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, DATED
30/11/2018.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS 23/2011
DATED 30/11/2018 OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE
COURT, MANNARKKAD.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EP 142/2019 IN OS
23/2011 OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT,
MANNARKKAD 30/11/2018.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN
EP 142/2019 DT.30/11/2018 IN OS 23/2011
OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT,
MANNARKKAD.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND
REPRESENTATION DATED 16/10/2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT MANARKAD IN
E.A NO.17/2020 IN WP NO 142/2019 IN OS
NO.23/11 DATED 10/6/2020
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARKAD IN
E A NO.27/2020 IN EP NO.142/19 IN OS
NO.23/11 DATED 16/10/2020
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
