Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Kerala High Court

Chandrahasan N.V. Aged 73 Years vs The State Of Kerala on 15 March, 2011

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT:

           THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN
                                         &
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

     MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937

                          WP(C).No. 36138 of 2015 (N)
                            ----------------------------

      PETITIONERS :
      ------------------

       1. CHANDRAHASAN N.V. AGED 73 YEARS,
           S/O.VELAYUDHAN, NADUVILEMURIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
           PANAMBUKAD, ERNAKULAM.

       2. BABY, S/O.CHANDRAHASAN, AGED 59 YEARS,
           NADUVILEMURIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
           PANAMBUKAD, ERNAKULAM.


       BY ADVS.SMT.PRABHA R.MENON
                  SRI.R.MANOJ

      RESPONDENTS :
      -------------------

       1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
          MINISTRY OF HOME, STATE SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

       2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

       3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULAVUKAD - 682 504.

       4. ARUNKUMAR. N.C., AGED 41 YEARS,
           S/O. CHANDRAHASAN, NADUVILEMURIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
           PANAMBUKAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 504.

       5. ANEESH KUMAR. M.C., AGED 40 YEARS,
           S/O. CHANDRAHASAN, NADUVILEMURIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
           PANAMBUKAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 504.

       R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.C.R. SYAM KUMAR.
       R4 & R5 BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
                           SMT.SUMA RATHEESH
                           SRI.N.RATHEESH

       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ttb

WP(C).No. 36138 of 2015 (N)
---------------------------------


                               APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.257/2011 OF THE SUBORDINATE
         JUDGES COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 15.03.2011.

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF DECREE AND TERMS OF COMPROMISE IN OS NO.257/2011
          OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 27.03.2013.

EXT.P2(A) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2.

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPAINT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE
          REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI.

EXT.P3(A) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P3.

EXZT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE
            THE S.I. OF POLICE, MULAVUKAD DATED 16.11.2015.

EXT.P4(A) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P4.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

       NIL


                               /TRUE COPY/


                                          PA TO JUDGE


ttb



                     ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J &
                        A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
                  ---------------------------------------
                    W.P.(C) No.36138 of 2015
                  ----------------------------------------
            Dated this the 21st day of December 2015


                           J U D G M E N T

Shaffique, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners alleging that respondents 4 and 5, who are the sons of the first petitioner, are creating obstruction in their residing in the residential premises owned by the petitioners. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the first petitioner had given away 2/3rd of his property to his sons and he has got a right to reside in the building, in which, he is presently residing.

2. The aforesaid contention has been objected by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5. It is stated that though respondents 4 and 5 are ready to take care of their father, the 2nd petitioner does not like the same. That apart, no life interest has been created in the property.

3. In this writ petition, we do not think it necessary to interfere with the property right of the parties. The sole request in this police protection matter is to have a peaceful residence in the building, in which, the petitioners are now residing. The W.P.(C) No.36138 of 2015 -: 2 :- petitioners are apparently residing in the ground floor and both the sons are residing with their families in the first floor of the building.

4. Having regard to the fact that family dispute is involved in this matter, we do not think that the police can interfere and provide necessary protection. That apart, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 would submit that they will not interfere in the petitioners' residing in the ground floor.

We record the above submission and close the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to approach the police, if there is any law and order situation.

Sd/-

ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Jvt/23.12.2015.