Madras High Court
V.Mukundha vs The Inspector Of Police on 18 January, 2021
WP No.12693 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
WP No. 12693 of 2020
V.Mukundha ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
E2 Royapettah Police Station,
Chennai 600 014.
2. Janaki Ravichandran ... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent police to
consider the complaint dated 31.07.2020 given by the petitioner and to give
police protection to the petitioner to enforce in the decree order dated
25.09.2014 in S.A.No.906 of 2002 on the file of this Court for putting up
the compound wall in the property.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.12693 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor, for R1
Mr.V.Balasubramanian, for R2
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus
directing the first respondent to consider the complaint given by the
petitioner on 31.07.2020 and provide police protection to the petitioner to
enable the petitioner to put up a compound wall in the subject property.
2. Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submitted that the subject property originally belonged to one
Subbba Rao. He filed a suit in CS No.48 of 2001, before this Court seeking
for the relief of partition and a compromise decree was passed on
29.03.2001. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the subject
property devolved upon one Pururavas and he became the absolute owner of
the property. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that there was a dispute
between the said Pururavas and Eswaravan and four others and the matter
ultimately reached this Court in Second Appeal No.906 of 2002. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.12693 of 2020
learned Senior Counsel brought to the notice of this Court the judgment and
decree passed in the Second Appeal, dated 25.09.2014 and submitted that
this Court declared that there is a 12 feet pathway which is a common
pathway. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner, who
was a subsequent purchaser wanted to put up a wall in his property by
leaving the 12 feet pathway. This was prevented by the second respondent
and the second respondent was creating law and order problem and hence a
complaint came to be given before the first respondent seeking for police
protection. Since the same was not considered, the present Writ Petition has
been filed before this Court.
3. Heard Mr.M.Mohamamed Riyaz, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr.V.Balasubramanian,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent.
4. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel on either side and also the material available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.12693 of 2020
5. A careful reading of the judgment passed by this Court in SA
No.906 of 2002 reveals the fact that this Court had merely declared that
insofar as plaint ‘A’ portion is concerned, there is a 12 feet pathway which
was declared as a common pathway. No other relief was granted by this
Court. According to the petitioner, he wants to put up a wall in his property
by leaving the 12 feet pathway as declared by this Court and this is
prevented by the second respondent. The petitioner is therefore seeking for
police protection from the first respondent.
6. In the considered view of this Court, the facts of the present case
clearly shows that the Police will have no role to play and the relief as
sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court. If according to
the petitioner, the second respondent is preventing the petitioner from
putting up a wall in his property, the petitioner has to independently
approach the Civil Court and seek for appropriate relief against the second
respondent. It will be too difficult for the police to ascertain the 12 feet
pathway and thereafter provide for protection to the petitioner and
obviously there will be rival claims which cannot be determined by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.12693 of 2020
Police. Therefore, the most appropriate forum to be approached will be the
Civil Court and the petitioner can always establish his right, before the Civil
Court and the Civil Court will also have the advantage of determining the
place at which the wall is sought to be constructed and also ensure that it is
done by leaving the 12 feet pathway.
7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief
as sought for by the petitioner and it is left open to the petitioner to work out
his remedy before the concerned Civil Court. The Writ Petition is disposed
of accordingly. No costs.
18.01.2021
Internet: Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
speaking order/ Non Speaking order
jv
To
1. The The Inspector of Police,
E2 Royapettah Police Station,
Chennai 600 014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.12693 of 2020
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.,
jv
WP No. 12693 of 2020
18.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
