Kerala High Court
M.A.Sunil vs M.R. Pradeep on 21 August, 2025
WAs.1866 & 2086/2023 -:1:-
2025:KER:63317
"C.R."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 1866 OF 2023
[JUDGMENT DATED 05.10.2023
ARISING FROM WP(C) NO.22946 OF 2023]
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT NOS.3 & 4:
1 M. K. ARAVINDAKSHAN, AGED 83 YEARS
S/O. LATE KITTUNNY, MANNAZHATH HOUSE,
P.O. EROOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682306.
2 M. A. SUDHEER, AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. M.K. ARAVINDAKSHAN, MANNAZHATH HOUSE,
P.O. EROOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682306.
BY ADVS. SRI. S.K. PREMRAJ
SRI. C. ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL)
SMT. V. SARITHA
SRI. K.V. SUDHEER
SRI. P.M. MANASH
SMT. REENU KURIAN
SRI. AADIL NAZARUDEEN
SRI. JAIN VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2, & 5:
1 M. R. PRADEEP, AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. LATE M. K. RAJAPPAN, MANNAZHATH HOUSE,
P.O. EROOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682306.
2 CHITRA A., AGED 51 YEARS
W/O. M. R. PRADEEP, MANNAZHATH HOUSE,
P.O. EROOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682306.
WAs.1866 & 2086/2023 -:2:-
2025:KER:63317
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE ROAD,
COCHIN, PIN - 682011.
4 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
HILL PALACE STATION, TRIPPUNITHURA P.O.,
KOCHI, PIN - 682301.
5 M. A. SUNIL, AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. M. K. ARAVINDAKSHAN, MANNAZHATH HOUSE,
P.O. EROOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682306.
BY ADVS. SRI. SANTHOSH MATHEW (SR.)
SRI. A. A. MOHAMMED NAZIR
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR. THUSHARA JAMES
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.08.2025, ALONG WITH WA. NO.2086/2023, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WAs.1866 & 2086/2023 -:3:-
2025:KER:63317
"C.R."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 2086 OF 2023
[JUDGMENT DATED 05.10.2023
ARISING FROM WP(C) NO.22946 OF 2023]
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.5:
M. A. SUNIL, AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. M. K. ARAVINDAKSHAN MANNAZHATH HOUSE,
P.O. EROOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682306.
BY ADVS. SRI. K.S. FRIJO
SRI. ARAVIND AJITH
SRI. GIGEESH BABU
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4:
1 M. R. PRADEEP, AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. LATE M. K. RAJAPPAN, MANNAZHATH HOUSE,
P.O. EROOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682306.
2 CHITRA A., AGED 51 YEARS
W/O. M. R. PRADEEP MANNAZHATH HOUSE,
P.O. EROOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682306.
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE ROAD,
COCHIN, PIN - 682011.
WAs.1866 & 2086/2023 -:4:-
2025:KER:63317
4 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
HILL PALACE STATION, TRIPPUNITHURA P.O.,
KOCHI, PIN - 682301.
5 M. K. ARAVINDAKSHAN,
S/O. LATE KITTUNNY MANNAZHATH HOUSE,
P.O. EROOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682306.
6 M. A. SUDHEER, AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. M. K. ARAVINDAKSHAN, MANNAZHATH HOUSE,
P.O. EROOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682306.
BY ADVS. SRI. S.K. PREMRAJ
SRI. C. ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL)
SMT. V. SARITHA
SRI. K.V. SUDHEER
SRI. P.M. MANASH
SMT. YAMINI GOPALAKRISHNAN
SMT. REENU KURIAN
SRI. AADIL NAZARUDEEN
SRI. JAIN VARGHESE
SRI. SANTHOSH MATHEW (SR.)
SRI. A.A. MOHAMMED NAZIR
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR. THUSHARA JAMES
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.08.2025, ALONG WITH WA. NO.1866/2023, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WAs.1866 & 2086/2023 -:5:-
2025:KER:63317
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of August, 2025.
Nitin Jamdar, C. J.
By these appeals filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court
Act, 1958, the Appellants have challenged the judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 5 October 2023 in W.P.(C) No.22946 of 2023
directing the police authorities to provide police protection to the
Original Petitioners to close down the gate in the subject property.
2. The Appellants in W.A. No.1866 of 2023 are Respondent Nos. 3
and 4, and the Appellant in W.A. No.2086 of 2023 is Respondent No. 5
in W.P.(C) No.22946 of 2023. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the children
of Respondent No. 3. The writ petition was filed by Respondent Nos. 1
and 2/Original Petitioners.
3. The Petitioners filed the writ petition stating that the Appellants are
preventing the Petitioners from enjoying their property, obstructing the
closing of the gate, and threatening them. Therefore, they approached the
Respondent - police authorities with a complaint and since no action was
taken, a writ of mandamus was sought against the Respondent - police
authorities, directing them to provide effective police protection to the
Petitioners to ensure their peaceful enjoyment of the property, to close
and lock the gate.
4. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment allowed the
writ petition and directed the police authorities to provide adequate and
2025:KER:63317
effective police protection to the Petitioners for closing the gate on the
eastern side of the disputed way in question, which was the subject matter
of the civil suit, O.S. No.190 of 2013 on the file of the First Additional
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. Being aggrieved, the Appellants are before
this Court with these appeals.
5. We have heard Mr. C. Anilkumar, learned counsel for the Appellants
in W.A. No.1866 of 2023, Mr. K. S. Frijo, learned counsel for the
Appellant in W.A. No.2086 of 2023, Mr. Santhosh Mathew, learned
Senior Advocate along with Mr. A. A. Mohammed Nazir, learned counsel
for the Respondents/Original Petitioners, and Dr. Thushara James,
learned Senior Government Pleader.
6. The main contention raised by the Appellants is that by directing
police protection to lock the gate, the learned Single Judge entered into
the civil dispute between the parties, and the remedy of the Petitioners
was to approach the civil court. It was contended that, in fact, the
Petitioners had sought similar reliefs in their counter-claim in O.S.
No.190 of 2013, which was dismissed by the Additional Munsiff Court
and against the said dismissal, no appeal was preferred by the Petitioners.
It was contended that a relief specifically declined by the civil court
cannot be sought indirectly by seeking police protection. It was
contended that if at all there is any injunction, the civil court also has the
power to enforce its own order under Order XXXIX Rule 2A or Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with police aid and there was
2025:KER:63317
no law and order situation. Therefore, a writ of mandamus ought not to
have been issued.
7. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Original Petitioners
contended that there is no bar to the issue of a writ of mandamus even in
a dispute of a civil nature, and that the Petitioners need not be relegated
to the remedy before the civil court. He relied upon the decision of the
Full Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Essar Telecom Infrastructure
(P) Ltd. v. C.I. of Police, Angamali Police Station1. He contended that the
Appellants had specifically sought to establish their right of easement and
had failed, and that the Petitioners, being the owners of the property, are
entitled to police protection for the beneficial enjoyment thereof. It was
submitted that there was no error in granting police protection by the
learned Single Judge.
8. The family members are in dispute over a property with an extent of
32 cents, located in Survey No.608 of Nadama Village. According to the
Respondents/Original Petitioners, this property belonged to late
Kittunny, father of late M.K.Rajappan and M.K.Aravindakshan -
Respondent No. 3. There was a partition deed in the property and also a
gift deed. It was stated that there is a temple situated on the eastern side
of the property where there was a motorable pathway, and it is the case of
the Petitioners that in the settlement deed wide passage was provided on
the southern extremity of the Petitioners' property to enable the
Appellants to have access to the temple road on the east.
1 2010 (2) KHC 445 (FB)
2025:KER:63317
9. The suit filed by the Appellants in W.A. No.1866 of 2023 before
the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam was for a declaration that they have a
prescriptive easementary right over the plaint B schedule way for the
enjoyment of plaint A schedule property, and an injunction restraining
the Petitioners from causing any obstruction or from destroying the
pillars of the gate at its entrance. It was the case of the Appellants that, as
per the settlement deed, they had obtained a portion of the property and
were entitled to ownership and enjoyment thereof. Due to an accidental
slip, the existence of the building was omitted from the document
executed by the father of the Appellants, despite the fact that he had
renovated it and had access to it via the plaint B schedule pathway. It was
also stated that the pathway is necessary for the beneficial enjoyment of
the scheduled property.
10. The Petitioners had filed a written statement along with a counter-
claim. In the counter-claim, the Petitioners sought an injunction against
the Appellants in respect of the subject property. The Munsiff Court
framed issues in the suit as regards the claim of the Appellants for
permanent prohibitory injunction, whether the Petitioners had title over
the written statement A schedule property, and whether they were
entitled to a permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for. The reliefs
sought in the counter-claim by the Petitioners are reproduced hereunder:
(a) Pass a decree for fixation of the southern and
western boundaries of the written statement A schedule
property adjoining the plaint A schedule property of the
plaintiffs after due measurement and demarcation of the
2025:KER:63317
same by an Advocate Commissioner with the help of
Taluk Surveyor, Kanayannur on the basis of Settlement
Deed No.3471/1982 of the SRO, Trippunithura and
relevant survey sketches.
(b) Pass a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction
restraining the plaintiffs, their men and agents from
trespassing into the written statement A schedule
property, causing any obstruction to the defendants,
their family members and their tenants in using the
written statement A schedule property from locking the
Eastern Gate in plaint B schedule property, from in any
way changing the character of the written statement A
schedule property and from doing anything detrimental
to the defendant's right to use the same."
***
The Petitioners in the counter-claim also asserted exclusive ownership
and possession over the A schedule property. The Petitioners in the
counter-claim stated that they apprehended that the Appellants were
likely to obstruct the Petitioners from using the schedule A property and
concrete or tar the B schedule property so as to assert the right which they
have claimed. The Munsiff Court dismissed both the suit and the
counter-claim by judgment dated 22 January 2018.
11. Against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff, the
Appellants filed A.S. No.22 of 2018 before the District Court,
Ernakulam. No appeal was filed by the Petitioners against the rejection of
their counter-claim. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional District
Judge by judgment dated 28 September 2021, against which R.S.A
No.813 of 2021 was filed before this Court. The second appeal was
dismissed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 6 March 2023.
2025:KER:63317
12. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge refers to the
contentions of the parties on the merits of the above civil dispute. After
referring to paragraphs 1 to 6 of the petition, in paragraph 7, the
observations of the trial court are referred to and it is observed that the
Appellants have no right to interfere with the act of the Petitioners in
closing the eastern gate. Consequently, the learned Single Judge directed
that the Petitioners shall be provided police protection for closing the
gate. However, there is no reference to the existence of any law and order
situation. The order issued in the impugned judgment is based only on
the civil rights of the parties.
13. Apart from the contention of the Appellants that relief in favour of
the Petitioners, even though prayed for, was not granted by the civil
court, the basic question that arises is the parameters of writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in issuing a writ of
mandamus to the Police.
14. The Petitioners had invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court
seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent - police authorities
to extend police protection. The broad contours of the exercise of writ
jurisdiction are settled. This prerogative remedy is a discretionary remedy.
The writ of mandamus is ordinarily issued to enforce the performance of
a statutory duty where the public officer has the power but has refused to
exercise it.
15. In the petition, a writ of mandamus was sought against the Police
officers. The duty of a police officer is prescribed under Section 27 of the
2025:KER:63317
Kerala Police Act, 2011, which provides that every police officer has to
undertake all reasonable and lawful activities for the efficient and effective
discharge of the duties specified under the Act, with respect to the
maintenance of law and order and the prevention of danger. Section 149
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 168 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides that every police
officer may interpose for the purpose of preventing, and shall, to the best
of his ability, prevent the commission of any cognizable offence. Under
these provisions, it is the duty of the police authorities to maintain law
and order, and despite a serious apprehension of a law and order
situation, if the police authorities refuse to act, a writ of mandamus can be
issued. While issuing a writ of mandamus to the police authorities to
prevent or stop law and order issues, the Court is primarily concerned
with maintaining public peace and preventing the deleterious effects of a
deteriorating law and order situation. The Court is not primarily
concerned with the adjudication of civil rights between the parties as it
falls within the domain of the civil court.
16. In the case of P. R. Muralidharan and Others v. Swami
Dharmananda Theertha Padar and Others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had occasion to consider a case seeking a writ of mandamus directing the
police authorities to extend police protection. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court held as follows:
"17. A writ petition under the guise of seeking a writ
of mandamus directing the police authorities to give
2 (2006) 4 SCC 501
2025:KER:63317
protection to a writ petitioner, cannot be made a
forum for adjudicating on civil rights. It is one thing to
approach the High Court, for issuance of such a writ
on a plea that a particular party has not obeyed a
decree or an order of injunction passed in favour of the
writ petitioner, was deliberately flouting that decree or
order and in spite of the petitioner applying for it, or
that the police authorities are not giving him the
needed protection in terms of the decree or order
passed by a court with jurisdiction. But, it is quite
another thing to seek a writ of mandamus directing
protection in respect of property, status or right which
remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an
adjudication can only be got done in a properly
instituted civil suit. It would be an abuse of process for
a writ petitioner to approach the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of
mandamus directing the police authorities to protect
his claimed possession of a property without first
establishing his possession in an appropriate civil
court. The temptation to grant relief in cases of this
nature should be resisted by the High Court. The wide
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
would remain effective and meaningful only when it is
exercised prudently and in appropriate situations."
***
The question as regards the grant of relief for providing police protection
came up before the Division Bench of this Court in Sadananda Bai T.V.
v. C. M. Ravi and Others 3, wherein it was observed as follows:
"Recently, the "police protection jurisdiction" is
being converted into a special original jurisdiction,
not conferred by the Constitution. Under the guise of
seeking police protection, civil disputes are raised
3 2008 (3) KLT 542
2025:KER:63317
before this Court, calling upon it to make a prima
facie adjudication and based on that finding, ask the
police to render assistance to the party, whose right
has been, prima facie, found by this Court to be
infringed. This Court has no such power to follow
the above procedure under the Constitution. The
High Court has no power to adjudicate the disputes
between private parties, while exercising its power of
judicial review. The powers of this Court to issue
writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
are well settled. This Court can issue a mandamus to
the police to perform their duty enjoined upon them
by the statutes."
***
In the case of Kondo Syokai Leisure India (P) Ltd. v. Assistant
Commissioner of Police and Others4, the Division Bench of this Court
made a reference to the above two decisions and held as follows:
"18. In view of the settled legal principles, the
irresistible conclusion that we arrive at, is that the
disputed questions in regard to the title and possession
of the properties over which the petitioner asserts title
and possession, cannot have been the subject matter
for adjudication by a writ court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India under the guise of police
protection for the reasons which we have adverted to
earlier. We are of the considered view that the
petitioner cannot claim relief by way of police
protection and the remedy of the petitioner is to
pursue its appropriate action before the competent
Civil Court. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
However, we make it clear that the dismissal will be
without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek
appropriate reliefs before the competent civil court, if
4 2018 SCC Online Ker 22605
2025:KER:63317
so advised in accordance with law and as and when the
petitioner sets the law in motion, such court is at
liberty to decide the matter untrammelled by the
observations contained in this judgment."
***
In the case of Rajendran Kambakkaram C. K. v. State of Kerala and
Others5, the Division Bench of this Court observed that the police cannot
be made adjudicators of civil disputes. A similar view was taken by the
Division Benches in the cases of Suseela v. State of Kerala6, Kallai Abu v.
Sub Inspector of Police, Malappuram and Others7, and V. O. John v.
Circle Inspector of Police, Kalloorkadu Police Station & Others8.
17. In the case of M/s. Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd., relied
upon by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, the
issue referred to the Full Bench was to reconcile the jurisdiction to grant
police protection under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the
remedy available before the civil court, notwithstanding any failure on the
part of the police to discharge their duty. In the case before the Full
Bench, a law and order situation had arisen when local inhabitants were
forcefully obstructing the construction or energisation of mobile base
stations. In these circumstances, it was held that the police cannot act as
silent spectators. The Full Bench while answering the reference also
observed that the construction of mobile base station, by itself, will not
give rise to a dispute of purely civil nature to be relegated to the civil
5 2022 (5) KLT 915
6 2008 (4) KLT 561
7 2013 (1) KLT 320
8 2018 KHC 3260
2025:KER:63317
court merely for the reason that a section of the public apprehends that it
might cause health hazards and if the mobile tower companies had
obtained requisite permissions, nobody can physically obstruct such work.
Therefore, it was held that in the event of obstruction by a member of the
public to the construction of a mobile tower, the affected party could not
be relegated to the civil court. The Full Bench noticed the divergent views
of the Division Bench and also noticed the remedy available under Order
XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for violation of an
injunction order. The Full Bench opined that if there is not much
disputed facts which require evidence, the party need not be relegated to
civil court, and that there is a statutory duty cast upon the police under
Sections 29(b), (d), (h), and (r) of the Kerala Police Act, 1960 and
Section 149 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to prevent the
commission of any cognizable offence and meet the threat to law and
order. The Full Bench held that where there are no disputed questions of
fact that need to be adjudicated, and a threat to law and order emerges,
then a writ of mandamus can be issued.
18. In the cases at hand, both parties had sought injunctions and
declarations, which were dismissed. The Petitioners in their counter-claim
thus sought to restrain the Appellants and their men from trespassing into
the A schedule property, from locking the eastern gate in plaint B
schedule property, and from doing anything detrimental to the right to
use the same, and also sought fixation of the boundary of the schedule A
property. The counter-claim was dismissed by the Munsiff, against which
2025:KER:63317
no appeal was filed by the Petitioners. According to the Petitioners, even
assuming the position to be this, still being the owners, they can protect
the property and seek police protection.
19. It is essential to note that police assistance under the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908, and police protection to be ordered under Article
226 of the Constitution of India stand on a different footing. The Court
has to ensure that all prerequisites for issuing a writ of mandamus are met
before directing the police authorities to provide protection to private
parties. The existence of a threat to law and order is a jurisdictional fact
for the issuance of the writ of mandamus. This jurisdictional fact needs to
be established before a writ of mandamus can be issued. In a given case,
the remedy of the party to approach the civil court and/or to invoke
Order XXXIX Rule 2A or Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 may exists, and in some cases, to other competent adjudicating
forum. While exercising writ jurisdiction, the existence of an alternate
remedy is a relevant factor to be kept in mind.
20. The impugned judgment does not record any finding as to the
existence of any law and order situation, but simpliciter refers to the civil
rights of the parties. The police authorities had taken a stand that there is
no such law and order perceived, and the parties will have to approach the
civil court. The impugned judgment, rendered without recording the
existence of jurisdictional facts and based merely on findings in the civil
dispute, that too, only partial findings, cannot be sustained.
2025:KER:63317
21. The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that, pursuant to
the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Petitioners have
closed the gate and that the earlier position be now restored. However, it
is to be noted that the impugned judgment was rendered on 5 October
2023, and the Appeals have since been pending without any interim
order. Though the case was referred for mediation, the mediation has
failed. The position as complained of has continued for almost two years.
22. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned
judgment needs to be set aside and petition needs to be restored to the file
of the learned Single Judge, to ascertain whether the jurisdictional fact for
issuance of a writ of mandamus, namely, the existence of a threat to law
and order, was established; whether, in the circumstances, the alternate
remedy is more appropriate; and whether an order of status quo ante, that
is, opening of the lock put up pursuant to the impugned judgment, needs
to be granted leaving it to the parties to approach the civil court.
23. Accordingly, the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5
October 2023 in W.P.(C) No.22946 of 2023 is quashed and set aside,
and the petition filed by the Respondents/Original Petitioners stands
restored to the file. Leave is granted to the Appellants to take out an
application for early hearing of the Petition and/or restoration of status
quo ante.
24. The Appeals are accordingly disposed of.
2025:KER:63317
25. Though the police protection jurisdiction has been routinely
invoked in the State over several years, it has to be now borne in mind
that over the years the demands on the police force have grown manifold.
The police force operates with limited resources and has to attend to
various duties, often emergent ones. Routinely ordering police protection
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without the apprehension
of serious law and order issues being established, would divert the time
and energy of the police force from areas where genuine law and order
issues exist. Thus, orders for police protection may have implications
extending beyond the parties before the Court, and this is a factor which
the writ court ought to keep in mind.
Sd/-
NITIN JAMDAR,
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI,
JUDGE
krj/-
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
2025:KER:63317
APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE A-1 SERIES PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LOCKED GATE AND THE
GRANITE BOULDERS BLOCKING THE PATHWAY
(PLAINT B SCHEDULE IN O.S. NO. 190 OF
2013 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT
- I(A), ERNAKULAM) (3 NOS.) ALONG WITH
THE STATUTORY CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION
65-B OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872.
ANNEXURE A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2023
IN SLP(CIVIL) DIARY NO.40030 OF 2023 OF
THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
ANNEXURE A-3 SERIES TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION/INFORMATION
DT. 04.08.2023 FILED BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER'S MOTHER BEFORE THE SHO,
HILL PALACE POLICE STATION ALONG WITH
THE RECEIPT THEREOF.
ANNEXURE A-4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE BASIC
TAX REGISTER OF THE PROPERTY
ADMEASURING 1.80 ARES COMPRISED IN R.S.
NO. 156/26 OF THE NADAMA VILLAGE.
ANNEXURE A-5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. RTI-02/2024
DT. 22.01.2024 ISSUED TO THE 2ND
PETITIONER FROM THE STATE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER, SRO, TRIPUNITHURA.
ANNEXURE A-5 (A) TRUE TRANSLATED COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
RTI-02/2024 DT. 22.01.2024 ISSUED TO
THE 2ND PETITIONER FROM THE STATE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SRO,
TRIPUNITHURA.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE FIR 2270/2023 REGISTERED
BY HILL PALACE POLICE STATION AGAINST THE
2ND APPELLANT AND 5TH RESPONDENT.
2025:KER:63317
ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE GOOGLE MAP OF THE
PROPERTY OF RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.
ANNEXURE R1(C) THE DRONE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AERIAL VIEW
OF THE PROPERTIES OF BOTH PARTIES
INCLUDING THE ROADS AND PATHWAYS.
ANNEXURE R1(D) THE DRONE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AERIAL VIEW
OF THE PROPERTIES OF BOTH PARTIES
INCLUDING THE ROADS AND PATHWAYS.
2025:KER:63317
APPELLANTS' ANNEXURE:-
ANNEXURE A-1 CD CONTAINING THE VIDEO DATED 22.08.1993 OF
THE MARRIAGE OF THE SISTER NAMELY DEEPA, OF
THE APPELLANT.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE-R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23.7.2024
(WRONGLY SHOWN AS 23.7.2023) PREFERRED BY
SUNIL (THE APPELLANT HEREIN) BEFORE THE
NADAMA VILLAGE OFFICER.
TRANSLATION ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE R1(A).
ANNEXURE-R1(B) THE DRONE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AERIAL VIEW OF
THE PROPERTIES OF BOTH PARTIES INCLUDING
THE ROADS AND PATHWAYS.
ANNEXURE-R1(C) THE DRONE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AERIAL VIEW OF
THE PROPERTIES OF BOTH PARTIES INCLUDING
THE ROADS AND PATHWAYS.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
