Madras High Court
T.Balaji vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Police on 9 September, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
W.P.No.1250 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.No.1250 of 2023
T.Balaji ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Peravallur Circle, Chennai
2.The Inspector of Police
V-1, Villivakkam Police Station
Chennai
3.Dhakshyani
4.B.Seshathri
5.Sandiliyan .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to consider
the petitioner's representation more particularly, the representation dated
14.10.2022 and give police protection for put up the compound wall to the
property situated at S.F.No.368/1, T.V.Ammal Koil Street, Villivakkam,
Chennai to an extent of 1827 sq.ft.,
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumarasamy
For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja for R1 & R2
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Mr.G.Thyagarajan for R3, R4 & R5
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 11:38:55 am )
The petitioner seeks police protection to erect the compound wall.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the property has been originally
purchased by the petitioner's grandfather on 17.01.1951. Thereafter, as the
dispute arose between the respondent's father, the suit came to be filed in
O.S.No.164 of 1956 for declaration and injunction which came to be decreed
in favour of the petitioner's grandfather. On appeal, the same was confirmed.
The respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.3399 of 2009 for bare injunction
and that suit was also dismissed and appeal also confirmed, therefore,
according to him, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence,
seeks for police protection.
3. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
though earlier suit was decreed in favour of petitioner's grandfather, after the
suit has reached finality, the property has been sold to the respondent's father
by virtue of sale deed dated 19.02.1959 in Doc.No.425/1959.
4. Considering the above, as there is some dispute with regard to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 11:38:55 am )
rights of the parties, as a matter of right, merely on the basis of a judgment
and decree obtained prior to the sale in favour of the respondent in the year
1959, it cannot be now concluded that only the petitioner is in possession of
the property. Such view of the matter, I am not inclined to direct for police
protection, let the parties agitate their rights in the Civil Court.
5. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. No costs.
09.09.2025
dhk
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
To
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Peravallur Circle, Chennai
2.The Inspector of Police
V-1, Villivakkam Police Station
Chennai
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 11:38:55 am )
dhk
09.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 11:38:55 am )
