Madras High Court
Thiruselvam @ Sivasankaran vs The Superintendent Of Police on 4 February, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9142 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04/02/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9142 of 2020
Thiruselvam @ Sivasankaran : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Pudukottai District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Namanasamuthiram Police Station,
Thirumayam Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.
3.Ravikumar
4.Arokkiya Sundaram
5.Sebasthiyan Kennadi : Respondents
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., to issue a direction directing the 1st
respondent to direct the 2nd respondent to give police
protection for fencing the petitioner's patta land in R.S
No.91/3B and R.S No.91/4 by considering the petitioner's
representation dated 19.08.202.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Baalasundharam
For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.Manikandan
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R3 to R5 : Mr.S.A.Ajmalkhan
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9142 of 2020
O R D E R
This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
for a direction to the 1st respondent to direct the 2nd
respondent to give police protection for fencing the
petitioner's patta land in R.S Nos.91/3B and 91/4, by
considering the petitioner's representation dated
19.08.2020.
2.The case of the petitioner in brief:-
The mother of the petitioner namely Manickammal
purchased 77 cents in Lembalakudi Village in Survey No.
91/3B through a registered sale deed, dated 03/02/1995 and
ever-since she was in possession. The father of the
respondents 3 to 5 by name Samikannu @ Anthonimuthu tried
to interfere in the possession of the mother of the
petitioner. So, she filed a suit in O.S No.100 of 1998
against the above said Samikannu @ Anthonimuthu. The
respondents 3 to 5 herein were brought on record. The suit
was decreed. Against the above said decree, A.S No.44 of
2002 was filed by the above said Samikannu @ Anthonimuthu.
That was also dismissed. So against which, second appeal
has been preferred in SA(MD)No.938 of 2004 and that was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9142 of 2020
also dismissed on 20/09/2012, since no steps have been
taken to bring on record the legal heirs of the above said
Samikannu @ Anthonimuthu.
3.After the dismissal of the above said second appeal,
the petitioner received enquiry notice from the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai in Na.Ka.No.A8/7624/2010,
dated 08/05/2013 for transfer of patta in Survey No.91/3B.
So the petitioner filed WP(MD)No.9961 of 2014 against the
proceedings and now it is pending before this court. After
that, the mother of the petitioner Manickammal died on
17/02/2021. After that, the petitioner and his brother
namely L.Jebamalai entered into partition deed, dated
10/10/2015. In that partition, the property in Survey Nos.
91/3B and 91/4 was allotted to the petitioner and he is in
possession. In October 2019, the petitioner purchased stone
pillars for the purpose of fencing the property. But the
respondents 3 to 5 damaged the stone pillars. So, a
complaint was preferred by the petitioner. But the police
refused to take the same and give police protection. So the
petitioner made arrangements for the purpose of fencing the
property with the police aid. For that purpose, he also
made a representation, dated 23/07/2020. But that was not
considered. Hence, this petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9142 of 2020
4.A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the
private respondents 3 to 5, wherein they have stated that
the second appeal that was preferred by their father was
dismissed for non-appearance. But on the date of the above
said hearing, the mother of the petitioner by name
Manickammal, died on 17/02/2011. But that was not
immediately brought to the notice of this court in
WP(MD)No.9961 of 2014. After she partitioned and in spite
of knowledge of the death of the father, these respondents
have not been added as parties. Now the petitioner filed
CMP(MD)No.6977 of 2021 to set aside the dismissal order.
4.Regarding the title, it has been stated in the
counter that their father purchased the property from one
Arunachalam measuring 1.2 Acres through a sale deed, dated
13/01/1994. From the date of purchase, they are in
possession. So the property, which is claimed by the
petitioner is covered in the sale deed and the plaintiff in
the above said suit, created forged documents as if
Viswanathan Chettiar sold the property and the above said
Viswanathan Chettiar has no right in the property. Even in
the Commissioner Report, the possession of the respondents
3 to 5 have been stated. So according to the private
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9142 of 2020
respondents 3 to 5, when the second appeal is pending with
regard to the ownership of the petitioner, this petition is
not at all maintainable.
5.Heard both sides and perused the entire records.
6.As stated in the petition, the suit in O.S No.100 of
1998 ended in favour of the father of the petitioner. So
also the second appeal in AS No.47 of 2002. Now against
which, the father of the respondents 3 to 5 namely
Samikannu @ Anthonimuthu preferred second appeal in SA No.
938 of 2004 and that was dismissed for non-prosecution on
20/09/2012. Now according to the private respondents 3 to
5, even on the date when the matter was heard, the
Manickammal was no more and that was not properly informed
to this court. After a long delay, it appears that the
private respondents filed a petition in October 2021 to
condone the delay in bringing the legal heirs on record, to
set aside the abatement order, etc., This petitioner was
filed on 25th August, the correct date of presentation of
the above petition before Police by the private respondent
is not clear on record. The verification date is left
blank. It has been presented in the Registry in the month
of October 2021. So in the same month when the presentation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9142 of 2020
of the petition, the above said proceedings have been
initiated by the private respondents. On the petition
presented by the petitioner, enquiry was undertaken by the
respondent police and during the course of enquiry, it was
found that the dispute between the parties are purely civil
in nature. So opinion from the Public Prosecutor was also
sought. So on the above said opinion, the enquiry was
closed in the petition filed for police protection, which
was enquired in CSR No.141 of 2020.
7.Now the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that since the trial court, appellate court as
well as the second appellate court decreed in favour of the
petitioner, it is the duty of the police to give police
protection for the purpose of police protection fencing the
property
8.So, in the light of the above filing of the petition
to condone the delay for the purpose of restoring the
second appeal, it may not be proper on the part of this
court to go in detail with regard to the claims made by the
parties. So it is for the concerned Bench of this court to
decide the issue with regard to the ownership of the
property. Even though on either side, judgments have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9142 of 2020
cited to support their case, this petition can be disposed
of on a short point that since proceedings are pending
before this court in the second appeal, granting of police
protection to the petitioner for the purpose of fencing the
property may not be proper. The remedy is always available
to the petitioner to approach the concerned Bench of this
court, in which the second appeal is pending in CMP(MD)No.
6977 of 2021 in SA No.938 of 2004 for appropriate relief.
9.So without going into the rival claims and without
going into the judgments that have been cited by either
side, this court is of the considered view that the
petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is
dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to work his
remedy by filing proper petition in the pending proceedings
in CMP(MD)No.6977 of 2021 in SA(MD)No.938 of 2004.
Internet:Yes 04.02.2022
Index:Yes/No
er
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9142 of 2020
that the copy of the
order that is presented
is the correct copy,
shall be the
responsibility of the
advocate/litigant
concerned.
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9142 of 2020
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9142 of 2020
04.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
