Kerala High Court
Mary Gify George vs Sherif Vincent on 6 February, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
W.P.(C) No.41107/25 1
2026:KER:10835
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 17TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 41107 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
1 MARY GIFY GEORGE
AGED 37 YEARS, W/O ANTONY FRANCIS,
MATHIRAPILLY HOUSE,
CHAMMINY ROAD, EDAYAKUNNAM,
SOUTH CHITTOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682027
2 DEON ANTONY M.,
AGED 11 YEARS, S/O ANTONY FRANCIS,
MATHIRAPILLY HOUSE,
CHAMMINY ROAD, EDAYAKUNNAM,
SOUTH CHITTOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682027
MINOR, REP BY HIS MOTHER GUARDIAN, MARY GIFY GEORGE
3 DERIC ANTONY
AGED 8 YEARS, S/O ANTONY FRANCIS,
MATHIRAPILLY HOUSE,
CHAMMINY ROAD, EDAYAKUNNAM,
SOUTH CHITTOOR, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682027 ,
MINOR, REP BY HIS MOTHER GUARDIAN, MARY GIFY GEORGE,
4 DEZA MARIA
AGED 4 YEARS, D/O ANTONY FRANCIS,
MATHIRAPILLY HOUSE,
CHAMMINY ROAD, EDAYAKUNNAM,
SOUTH CHITTOOR,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682027
MINOR, REP BY HER MOTHER GUARDIAN, MARY GIFY GEORGE,
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI
SRI.JEEVAN MATHEW MANAYANI
W.P.(C) No.41107/25 2
2026:KER:10835
RESPONDENTS:
1 SHERIF VINCENT
AGED 60 YEARS, S/O VINCENT,
MATHIRAPILLY HOUSE,
CHAMMINY ROAD, EDAYAKUNNAM,
SOUTH CHITTOOR,ERNAKULAM ,
REP BY HIS WIFE AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
REENY SHERIF
MATHIRAPILLY HOUSE,
CHAMMINY ROAD, EDAYAKUNNAM,
SOUTH CHITTOOR,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682027
2 REENY SHERIF
AGED 50 YEARS, W/O SHERIF VINCENT
MATHIRAPILLY HOUSE,
CHAMMINY ROAD, EDAYAKUNNAM,
SOUTH CHITTOOR,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682027
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHERANELLOOR POLICE STATION,
CHERANELLOOR P.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682034
4 THE SECRETARY TO HOME AFFAIRS
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
5 THE SECRETARY TO HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
6 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THRIVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
7 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD P.O,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
8 THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER
CIVIL STATION, KOCHIN CITY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
9 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
W.P.(C) No.41107/25 3
2026:KER:10835
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SREEJITH V.S., SR. GOVT. PLEADER
SHRI.M.P.RAMNATH
SHRI.P.RAJESH (KOTTAKKAL)
SRI.K.J.SEBASTIAN
SEI.M.VARGHESE VARGHESE
SMT.UMA R.KAMATH
SMT.S.SANDHYA
SHRI.BEPIN PAUL
SHRI.SHALU VARGHESE
SHRI.ANTONY THARIAN
SMT.SHANTHI JOHN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.02.2026, THE COURT ON 06.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.41107/25 4
2026:KER:10835
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.41107 of 2025
---------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioners seek a direction to respondents 3 to 8 to make arrangements to 'preserve the life' and also to ensure their 'right to move'. Directions are also sought to provide supply of adequate food materials and gas supply to preserve their life apart from directions to make arrangements to give adequate medical treatment to petitioners' aged parents.
2. Petitioners are close relatives of respondents 1 and 2. A suit as O.S. No.232 of 2014 was filed before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, seeking an injunction and for preservation of a road to the properties. The said suit was initially decreed which was confirmed in A.S. No.30 of 2017 before the Additional Sub Court-II, Ernakulam. However, in RSA No.418 of 2018, this Court set aside the decree of the trial court and allowed the appeal in favour of respondents 1 and 2. In the said judgment, respondents 1 and 2 had conceded to grant a pathway of 8 links as a means of access to the property of the plaintiffs from the road. According to the petitioners, despite the concession made by the respondents before this Court in the second appeal, which is recorded in Ext.P1 judgment in RSA No.418 of 2018, respondents 1 and 2 have destroyed the entire pathway, ploughed down the area, uprooted the plantations and telephone posts, thereby rendering the pathway totally inaccessible. Petitioners also allege that, even the aged parents are unable to be taken to the hospital and none of the petitioners are in a position to access the road W.P.(C) No.41107/25 5 2026:KER:10835 or move out of the house, thereby completely cutting them off from the outside world. Petitioners further allege that the minor children of the first petitioner are prevented from going to the school, the aged parents are deprived of medical treatment and all of them are in a state of starvation, thereby depriving them of their right to life and their right to move around. Pointing out the above precarious situation, petitioners approached respondents 4 to 8 through Ext.P2, despite which no action has been initiated and therefore they have approached this Court to ensure that the right of pathway, as conceded by respondents 1 and 2 before this Court in RSA No.418 of 2018, is protected and ensured.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 wherein it is stated that the petitioners are in effect claiming under Sri. M.C. Robert, who is still alive, and who was the second respondent in RSA No.418 of 2018 being the second plaintiff in O.S. No.232 of 2014 before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. It is stated that the petitioners have approached this Court with false allegations of destruction of the alleged 8 links pathway and if at all any of the terms of the decree have been violated or they have any grievance regarding such violation, the legal remedy available for them is to approach the execution court and not to seek redress through this writ petition. The respondents questioned the very maintainability of this writ petition and also stated that a dramatic scenario has been falsely depicted with willful distortions. Respondents 1 and 2 further allege that a false suit ultimately leading to the judgment in RSA No.418 of 2018 was filed by the father-in-law of the first petitioner along with others, claiming a 3 metre access through their property on the allegation that there was a permissive user mentioned in the document of title. According to them, the suit was filed after closing the regular access which the plaintiffs had, for the purpose of creating false claims and that, despite dismissing their suit, on humanitarian grounds, respondents 1 and 2 conceded to permit W.P.(C) No.41107/25 6 2026:KER:10835 them to have access through a 8 link pathway from west to east along the southern part abutting a river on the south. According to respondents 1 and 2, the petitioners are still enjoying the 8 links pathway which has been clearly laid and demarcated on the southern side, given as a concession as specified in Ext.P1 judgment of this Court which pathway has been appropriately secured and is being utilised by the petitioners. Respondents 1 and 2 further allege that the allegations of destruction of the access to the petitioners' property are totally false and that the exaggerated statements have been averred, solely to mislead the court. The nature and lie of the 8 links pathway, as claimed by the petitioners, have also been denied and the allegations are all fabricated falsities and sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. I have heard Sri.Johnson Manayani, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. M.P. Ramnath, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 as well as Sri. Sreejith V.S., the learned Government Pleader.
5. Petitioners are the daughter-in-law and grandchildren of Sri. M.C.Robert, who was the second plaintiff in O.S. No.232 of 2014 before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam and second respondent in RSA No.418 of 2018. Ext.P1 is the judgment in the above second appeal. In the suit, the plaintiffs had claimed an easement right of way by prescription as well as by grant, through the property of the defendants. After elaborately considering the contentions raised by the parties therein, a learned Single Judge of this Court had, in Ext.P1, concluded that there was no easement by grant in favour of the plaintiffs. It was also held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the existence of a pathway as scheduled in the plaint and that there was no right in their favour. The learned single Judge further went on to note that the suit was liable to be dismissed on the findings arrived at therein, which would however, leave the property of the plaintiffs in a landlocked situation. A reading of Ext.P1 judgment also reveals that, on behalf of the defendants, it W.P.(C) No.41107/25 7 2026:KER:10835 was conceded that they are willing to give a right of way through the B scheduled property to the extent of 8 links, which offer was not acceded to by the plaintiffs. Despite the above, the learned single Judge finally allowed the Regular Second Appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial court as well as that of the appellate court, and partly decreed the suit in terms of the admission made by the defendants that they will provide a pathway on the southern side of the property from the east to the west upto the plaintiffs' property having an 8 links width and upto the eastern side of the property in Re-survey No.458/10, abutting the river on the south.
6. It is evident from Ext.P1 that though the claim of the plaintiffs have been dismissed in its entirety, still, on the basis of the concession of the defendants, an 8 links pathway has been provided to the plaintiffs to have an access to their property. The writ petitioners being persons claiming under the second plaintiff in the suit ,are bound by the terms of Ext.P1 judgment and its decree. They cannot seek to expand their claim or their right if any, beyond what is specified in the said judgment and its consequential decree.
7. In the writ petition, the attempt of the petitioners is to create a picture of total inaccessibility to the road and claim police protection for exercising the permission granted to them. However, on a consideration of the rival arguments, irrespective of the nature of difficulties pleaded in the writ petition, legally, the petitioners are bound by the terms of the judgment in Ext.P1. Since they are claiming their right to have an access to the public road and the terms of the decree in Ext.P1 govern the inter se rights of the parties to the suit including the writ petitioners as their claim is only through the second plaintiff, the petitioners will have to approach the execution court to establish their claim for identification of the way. As the identity of the pathway, conceded to by respondents 1 and 2 in Ext.P1, is a matter which requires identification and appreciation of the disputed claims, it is not possible for this Court to arrive at a conclusion, especially since the W.P.(C) No.41107/25 8 2026:KER:10835 contesting respondents dispute the nature and extent of the way, now claimed by the petitioners.
8. In the decision in Padmanabhan N. v. State of Kerala [2024 (6) KLT 575], a Division Bench of this Court had observed that when there are civil disputes, it is not proper for this Court to interfere by means of grant of police protection. Since the petitioners have an efficacious remedy of executing the decree in Ext.P1, I am of the view that this Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE vps W.P.(C) No.41107/25 9 2026:KER:10835 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 41107 OF 2025 PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN R.S.A.NO-418/2018 DATED 29-9-2025 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 4 TO 8 DATED 30-10-2025 Exhibit P3 THE VIDEOGRAPH OF THE PATHWAY AND ITS PRESENT POSITION Exhibit P4 THE VIDEOGRAPHS OF THE PATHWAY AND THE AREA Exhibit P5 THE VIDEOGRAPHS SHOWING THE WATER SUBMERGED PATHWAY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS Exhibit R(1)-1(a) THE TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE CLEARLY DEMARCATED AND HINDRANCE FREE KEPT 8 LINKS WIDE PATHWAY ABUTTING THE RIVER (PUZHA) ON THE SOUTH, PROVIDED BY THE RESPONDENTS Exhibit R(1)-1(b) THE TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE CLEARLY DEMARCATED AND HINDRANCE FREE KEPT 8 LINKS WIDE PATHWAY ABUTTING THE RIVER (PUZHA) ON THE SOUTH, PROVIDED BY THE RESPONDENTS Exhibit R(1)-1(c) THE TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE CLEARLY DEMARCATED AND HINDRANCE FREE KEPT 8 LINKS WIDE PATHWAY ABUTTING THE RIVER (PUZHA) ON THE SOUTH, PROVIDED BY THE RESPONDENTS Exhibit R(1)-2(a) THE TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NOW TEMPORARY PERMITTED CLEARED PATHWAY FROM NORTH TO SOUTH ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE BESIDES THE EASTERN THODU (THODU ABOUT 2 MTRS WIDE AND PART OF RESURVEY 458/10) KEPT BY RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN THEIR PROPERTY Exhibit R(1)-2(b) THE TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NOW TEMPORARY PERMITTED CLEARED PATHWAY FROM NORTH TO SOUTH ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE BESIDES THE EASTERN THODU (THODU ABOUT 2 MTRS WIDE AND PART OF RESURVEY 458/10) KEPT BY RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN THEIR PROPERTY EXHIBIT R(1)-3 THE TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH OF RE.SY.NO.458 IN BLOCK NO.4 OF CHERANELLOOR W.P.(C) No.41107/25 10 2026:KER:10835 VILLAGE, AS ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, ERNAKULAM Exhibit R(1)-4 THE TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER EXTRACT ISSUED FROM THE CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE OFFICE INTER ALIA IN RESPECT OF RE.SY.NOS.458/8, 9, 10, 11 ETC Exhibit R(1)-5 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CAVEAT OP NO.228/2025 DT 29.10.2025 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN AS CAVEATORS BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM Exhibit R(1)-6 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AMENDED PLAINT DT.
13.04.2018 IN O.S. NO.454 OF 2018 BEFORE THE
HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT
Exhibit R(1)-7 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT DT.11.06.2018 IN
I.A.NO.2983/2018 IN O.S NO. 454/2018 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MUNSIFFS COURT, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit R(1)-8 THE PHOTOGRAPHS (2 NOS) TAKEN OF THE CHAMMANY
ROAD AND VIEW FROM THE TERRACE OF THESE
RESPONDENTS' HOUSE SHOWING THE CHAMMANY ROAD
(PUBLIC ROAD) ON THE EAST OF THE NARROW CANAL
(THODU), THE HOUSE PROPERTY OF THESE
RESPONDENTS ETC
Exhibit R(1)-9 THE TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DT
23.01.2026 IN SLP(C) NO.36803/2025 OF THE
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA