Kerala High Court
K.S Rajeev vs The District Police Chief on 23 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 29487 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
K.S RAJEEV
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. P. G. SUKUMARAN, GOVIND GARDENS, CHERTHALA TALUK,
VAYALAR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA,PIN - 633 586.
BY ADVS.
J.ABHILASH
VIMAL BHASKAR
RESPONDENT:
1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VAIKOM POLICE STATION, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN -
686141.
3 PRABHAKARAN
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. KUTTAPPAN, THUNDICHIRAYAL (H),
KUDAVECHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK,
AMBIKA MARKET P. O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 144.
BY ADVS.
D.G.VIPIN
KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY
T.K.SHAJAHAN-SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.29487 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for 3 rd
respondent.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that Ext.P1 decree stands confirmed as against 3rd respondent who
was 9th defendant in Ext.P1. It is submitted that the respondents
have objected to the measurement of the property and the
construction of a compound wall by the petitioner on the basis of
Ext.P1.
3. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 3 rd
respondent. It is contended that there is still dispute with regard
to the identity of the property and that the wife of the 3 rd
respondent, who had subsequently purchased an item of property
had approached the Munsiff's Court with an EA which has been
decided by Ext.R3(a). It is submitted that it is because of the
inability of the petitioner to identify the property that the disputes
have now arisen. It is submitted that the 3 rd respondent's wife is
not a party to the suit.
4. I have considered the contentions advanced, it is not in
dispute before me that the petitioner is the holder of Ext.P1 decree
of permanent prohibitory injunction. The only question is with
regard to the actual implementation of the terms of the decree and
the petitioner being permitted to enjoy the benefits thereof.
In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that
further steps for identification of the property on the basis of
Ext.P1 decree and the schedule therein are liable to be taken by
the petitioner with effective protection from the police, if required.
Accordingly, there will be a direction that in case there is any
obstruction to the measurement and demarcation of the property
from the 3rd respondent or anybody claiming through him, the
petitioner may inform the 2nd respondent, who shall afford
adequate protection for the appropriate measurement and
demarcation of the property as provided in Ext.P1.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN
ska JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29487/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 15.03.2006 IN
O.S.42/2002 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ETTUMANOOR.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER IN E.P.NO.45/2007 IN O.S.42/2002
DATED 23.10.2007.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.08.2016 IN
WP(C) 10099/2016 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CO. CASE
NO.2162/2016 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED
01.03.2017.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
13.12.2021 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
SECOND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED
13.12.2021 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT.
