Madras High Court
M.Kasthuriammal vs The Superintendent Of Police on 29 January, 2021
CRL OP (MD) No.8707 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 02.08.2021
Pronounced on : 20.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
CRL OP (MD) No.8707 of 2021
M.Kasthuriammal ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Thirupuvanam Police Station,
Thirupuvanam,
Sivagangai District.
3. M.Saminathan
4. C.Kalimuthu ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to direct the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 to provide
necessary Police protection to the petitioner and also the properties which are all
described as suit properties in the decree and judgment in O.S.No.147 of 2019,
dated 29.01.2021 passed by the learned District Munsif of Thirupuvanam on the
basis of the Representation given by the petitioner on 19.06.2021.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL OP (MD) No.8707 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Om Prakash
For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R3 & R4 : Mr.S.Ramasamy
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking police protection on the basis of the
representation dated 19.06.2021.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner namely,
Muthukrishna Pillai executed a registered Will in his favour on 29.09.1992 and
through that, a number of properties were conferred. Even though the property
absolutely belongs to the petitioner, they entered into unregistered partition deed
with the sons and daughters on 18.08.2020. Through the partition deed one
among the sons namely Saravanan acquired 'E' schedule property on 07.05.2016.
The said Saravanan died on 07.05.2016 and he was not married. So the petitioner
become the sole legal heir of the deceased Saravanan. The third respondent is one
of the sons of the petitioner but he joined hands with the fourth respondent herein
and created a fraudulent sale deed on 12.04.2017 based upon which they
disturbed possession of the petitioner. A suit in O.S.No.147 of 2019 was filed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL OP (MD) No.8707 of 2021
the petitioner seeking declaration declaring the said sale deed as null and void of
and for consequential injunction against the third respondent and fourth
respondent. There was a decree in favour of the petitioner on 29.01.2001. During
the pendency of the abovesaid suit, the respondents 3 and 4 tried to trespass into
the property which was under the leasehold right of one Sowral Beevi. When the
petitioner was threatened she along with Sowral Beevi made a complaint on
08.08.2020 before the second respondent. During the course of enquiry, the
respondents 3 and 4 have undertaken to the effect that they will not make any
trouble. On the said ground, complaint was closed. On 10.04.2021 they tried to
disturb possession of the petitioner and the above said Sowral Beevi. Again a
representation was made. There was no action. So final representation was made
on 19.06.2021 seeking police protection and since there was no action on the side
of the second respondent, this petition is filed.
3. Heard both sides.
4. It is a dispute between the mother and the son on one hand and third
party on the other hand. The petitioner is aged about 70 years and claimed right
over the property on the ground that her son namely, Saravanan, who died without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL OP (MD) No.8707 of 2021
any marriage and issue, she become the absolute legal heir of the abovesaid
Saravanan and inherited the property that was allotted to him prior through the
partition deed dated 18.08.2020. A portion of the property was leased to one
Sowral Beevi by the abovesaid Saravanan on 27.03.2014 measuring 1.25 acres i.e
in possession of the abovesaid Sowral Beevi. The suit in O.S.No.147 of 2019
ended in favour of the petitioner. On that basis, she seeks police protection from
the official respondents.
5. It is also admitted that there is a decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.
147 of 2019 and the respondents 3 and 4 have filed A.S.No.14 of 2021 before the
Subordinate Judge, Manamadurai and it is now pending. No stay order was also
granted against the judgment and decree.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents would submit
that even though the suit has been decreed in favour of the petitioner they filed an
appeal, the appeal is also pending and the stay petition is also pending.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL OP (MD) No.8707 of 2021
7. Since the title and possession of the property is now under dispute before
the appellate court, no police protection can be granted in favour of the petitioner.
The copy of the judgment in O.S.No.147 of 2019 as well as the appeal
memorandum and the copy of the stay petition was also filed by the private
respondents. The learned counsel for the private respondents would vehemently
rely upon a portion of cross-examination of the petitioner. The third respondent
appears to have claimed right over the property on the basis of the settlement
deed executed by the deceased Saravanan in favour of the third respondent
herein. On the basis of the alleged settlement deed, it seems that he has executed
sale deed in favour of the fourth respondent herein. But that settlement deed came
to be rejected by the trial court namely, the District Munsif, Thiruppuvanam in the
abovesaid suit. But it appears that the settlement deed was an unregistered one.
As per Section 17 of the Registration Act. the document requires proper
registration. On that ground, the document was invalidated by the trial court. The
correctness of the finding is pending before the appellate court. This Court need
not go into the factual aspects as well as legality of the claim made by the rival
parties. It is suffice to say that the title dispute between the parties is pending
before the appellate court. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that no stay order has been granted by the appellate court and since a decree for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL OP (MD) No.8707 of 2021
permanent injunction has been granted it must be protected through police force.
He would also rely upon the photographs which have been taken showing the
alleged trespass and damage to the trees and coconut trees situated in the disputed
property. So over which this petitioner appears to have given a complaint also.
Since civil dispute is pending before the appellate court, granting of police
protection to the petitioner on the basis of the decree of the trial court may not be
proper. The petitioner has to approach the concerned court for appropriate
remedy. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed but with a direction to
the petitioner.
8. In the result, this petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to
approach the appellate court before which the appeal is pending for appropriate
remedy by filing appropriate petition for contempt.
20.09.2021
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
cm
Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be
the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL OP (MD) No.8707 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
CM
To:
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Thirupuvanam Police Station,
Thirupuvanam,
Sivagangai District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai
CRL OP (MD) No.8707 of 2021
20.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
