Kerala High Court
Sarasamma Raghavan Nair vs The Superintendent Of Police on 2 April, 2012
Author: K.M.Joseph
Bench: K.M.Joseph, K.Harilal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2012/8TH JYAISHTA 1934
WP(C).No. 9070 of 2012 (G)
--------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------
SARASAMMA RAGHAVAN NAIR
AGED 75 YEARS, W/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, KOCHARAMBILHOUSE
VALLIKUNNAM MURI, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
SRI.R.REJI
SMT.THARA THAMBAN
SRI.B.BIPIN
RESPONDENTS:
--------------
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 001.
2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICECHENGANNUR
CHENGANNUR (PO), ALAPPUZHADISTRICT, PIN - 689 121.
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, MAVELIKKARA (P.O)
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690 101.
4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VALLIKUNNAM POLICE STATION, VALLIKUNNAM (P.O)
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690501.
5. UNNIPILLAI
KANDALLOR KIZHAKKATHIL, WARD NO.4
VALLIKKUNNAMVILLAGE, VALLIKUNNAM (P.O)
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN - 690 501.
6. OMANAKUTTAN
S/O.UNNI PILLAI, KANDLOOR KIZHAKKATHIL,WARD NO.4
VALLIKKUNNAM VILLAGE
VALLIKUNNAM (PO.)ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
PIN - 690 501.
7. SANKARAN NAIR
GOKULAM HOUSE, CHAITHANYA GARDEN,MANNARE MOOLAYIL
PEROORKADA (P.O),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 690 501.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAMKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 9070 of 2012 (G)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.29/2012
EXT.P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.6/2012 ON THE
FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM.
EXT.P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.28.03.2012 FILED BEFORE THE
4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXT.P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.30.03.2012 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH
TRANSLATION.
EXT.P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.03.02.2012 FILED BEFORE THE
4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REGISTRATION
PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.KL-04-V-4464.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXT.R7(A) : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.8804/2012 DTD.10.4.2012
EXT.R7(B): COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED DTD.26.4.2003
EXT.R7(C): COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD.8.8.2003
EXT.R7(D): COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.2892406 DTD.17.1.2008
EXT.R7(E): COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 2.4.2012
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
ab
K.M.JOSEPH & K.HARILAL, JJ
-------------------------------------------------
W.P(C) No.9070 of 2012
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2012
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:
"i. to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order directing the respondents 1 to 4 to provide adequate Police protection to the life of the petitioner, her family members and her property from any threat by respondent 5 to 7 and their henchmen".
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
The petitioner, a 75 year old lady claims to be the owner of 49 cents of property. The 5th respondent is the petitioner's husband's younger brother. The 6th respondent is the son of the 5th respondent and the 7th respondent is the son of the petitioner The petitioner claims tile under the sale deed executed by her mother. It is her case that on 25.9.2011, the daughter of the petitioner contacted the Village Office, Vallikunnam to remit basic tax, which was refused. On enquiry it is revealed that the 7th respondent has taken the petitioner and her mother and got their signature in an assignment deed which he had signed as a mortgage. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.29/2012 before the W.P(C) No.9070 of 2012 2 Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam. The 7th respondent also filed O.S.No.6/2012 (Ext.P2). It is stated that on 17.1.2012 two goondas trespassed into the property and attacked the petitioner with deadly weapons. Another allegation is that on 28.3.2012 the petitioner filed Ext.P3 complaint before the 4th respondent.
Again the petitioner filed Ext.P5 complaint in regard to taking away the car from the possession of the petitioner.
3. A counter affidavit is filed by the 7th respondent, wherein it is claimed that respondents 5 and 6 are the power of attorney holders of the 7th respondent to look after the property which is owned by the 7th respondent who is away from India. The writ petition is stated to be a counter blast to W.P(C) No.8804/2012, which is in fact filed by the 7th respondent, the judgment in which is produced as Ext.R7(a). Ext.R7(b) is produced as the release deed under which the 7th respondent claims. Ext.R7(c) purports to be the receipt issued by the Village Officer. R7(d) purports to be the land tax remitted on 17.1.2008. Ext.R7(e) purports to be the building tax receipt issued by the Vallikunnam Grama Panchayat. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit also .
4. We heard the learned counsel for the parties including W.P(C) No.9070 of 2012 3 the learned Government Pleader.
5. The case according to the 7th respondent is that he is living abroad. He claims under the release deed. The dispute is pending before the civil court and that matter is to be decided by the civil court. According to the 7th respondent, 7th respondent has permitted his aged mother to reside in the property after the release deed and nobody else was permitted except the mother. According to the petitioner the petitioner is residing with her daughter and son-in-law. Since the civil dispute relates to the properties concerned, we cannot possibly go into that question. However, we record the submission of the learned counsel for the 7th respondent that there will be no threat to the petitioner and he has no objection in her staying in his house also.
We record the said submission and close the writ petition.
K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE ab