Kerala High Court
Vasu vs Santhamma on 5 June, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 11995 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
VASU, AGED 79 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KURUVAKANDATHIL,
CHINGOLI MURI, CHINGOLI VLLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690532 NOW RESIDING AT
NEDIYATHUTHARAYIL, KANNAMANGALAM SOUTH MURI,
KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690106
BY ADVS.
B.RENJITHKUMAR
CLARA SHERIN FRANCIS
SANGEERTHANA M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 SANTHAMMA, AGED 64 YEARS, D/O. NANI, KURUVAKANDATHIL,
CHINGOLI MURI, CHINGOLI VLLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,, PIN - 690532
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.S.THOSHIN
SMT.REKHA C.NAIR - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 11995/24
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that he obtained the property involved in
this case through a Court process and that it is delivered to him
by the Amin deputed by the competent Civil Court, as evident
from Ext.P3. He says that, however, in order to destroy the fruits
of Ext.P2 decree obtained by him and the execution proceedings
initiated thereupon, the 1st respondent is intruding into his right to
construct a compound fencing on the boundary of the property. He
says that he, therefore, preferred Ext.P5 complaint before the 2nd
respondent - Station House Officer, seeking protection, but that no
action has been taken thereon; thus constraining him to approach
this Court through this Writ Petition.
2. Smt.Rekha C. Nair - learned Senior Government
Pleader, submitted that, the complaint of the petitioner has been
taken note of by the Police and that they are willing to afford
adequate and necessary protection to the petitioner. She added that
there have been no untoward incidents, particularly because the 1 st
respondent is a senior citizen who has informed the Police that she
does not intend to take law into her hands, but only to pursue
legal proceedings.
3. The endorsements on the files reveal that though
summons from this Court has been validly served on the 1st
respondent, she has chosen not to be present in person or
represented through counsel; thus inferentially guiding me to the
impression that she has nothing to offer in answer to the
allegations made in this Writ Petition.
4. Taking note of the afore submissions of the learned
Senior Government Pleader and since the 1st respondent has not
appeared, I deem it necessary to grant relief to the petitioner.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition,
directing the 2nd respondent - Station House Officer to afford
adequate and necessary protection to the petitioner and his
employees, provided they act strictly in terms of Exts.P2 and P3;
without any let or hindrance from any person, including the 1 st
respondent.
As far as the 1st respondent is concerned, her right to move
the competent Court/Forum for any tenable cause against the
petitioner is fully left open; for which, her contentions in that
regard are left undecided.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11995/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY DECREE
DATED 30.6.2006 IN THE FILE OF MUNSIFF
COURT, HARIPPAD
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL DECREE DATED
27.7.2013 IN THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT,
HARIPPAD
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY MEMO SUBMITTED
IN COURT BY THE AMEEN DATED 1.3.2024
Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY REPORT
SUBMITTED IN COURT BY THE AMEEN DATED
4.3.2024
Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 5.3.2024
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT
