1. This is a petition against respondents 1 to 5 for contempt of the Munsiff-Magistrate's Court, Perambra and of this Court, the 3rd respondent being the Munsiff-Magistrate himself. The case against respondent 5 has not been pressed and no charges have been framed against him.

2. Charges have been framed against each of the other four respondents and along with the charges, statements of allegations have also been furnished indicating the basis of the charges.

2 (1). The charges against the 1st respondent, A. P. Parukutty Mooppilamma are similar to those against her son the 2nd respondent. Achuthankutty Nair, and they can be summarised as follows: It is alleged that they took proceedings before the Police and Forest authorities without good faith as a device 'to help the jurisdiction of the court' of the Munsiff-Magistrate of Perambra in order to cause oppression and injustice to the petitioner and to gain unlawful advantage; and without any colour of right and in order to overreach and defeat the petitioner of his valuable rights, abused the process of that court. There is a further charge that the acts referred to in Para.8 to 13 of the accompanying statement of facts were calculated to impede the course of justice by defeating the orders, liable to be passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 176 of 1969 and Criminal M. P. No. 309 of 1969 pending before this Court.

2(2). The charges against the 3rd respondent, the Munsiff-Magistrate, Perambra, are that he has wilfully allowed the process of the Munsiff-Magistrate's Court, Perambra, to be abused by the other respondents and that he has aided and abetted the other respondents in so abusing the process of the Court; and in so doing he has not only acted in a manner wholly unwarranted by law, but has also wilfully impeded and diverted the course of justice by defeating the final orders liable to be passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 176 of 1569 and Criminal M.P. No. 309 of 1969 already referred to.

2 (3). The charges against the 4th respondent K. P. Ramaswami, the Inspector of Police, Quilandy are that he, without any good faith, and in order to over-reach and defeat the petitioner of his valuable rights, aided and abetted the other respondents in abusing the process of the Munsiff-Magistrate's Court, Perambra, and that without any bona fides and under the guise of submitting the final report suggested that the timber logs seized by the Police may be released to the 1st respondent while he knew or ought to have known that the question of the disposal of logs was essentially one which the court has to decide for itself on the basis of the materials placed before it and besides that his acts as set forth in the statement of facts, were calculated to impede the course of justice by defeating the orders liable to be passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 176 of 1969 and Criminal MP. No. 309 of 1969.

3. Disputes existed between the father of the petitioner, one Manakkal Krishnan, and the first respondent about the title to and possession of a mala-varam. The petitioner's father laid claim to 'Kalpadiyan Thirumudiyan' malavaram. Respondent 1 contended that there is no such malavaram and that it formed part of her own malavaram called 'Olathukki Ariyalakkan'. These rival contentions gave rise to a series of litigations. The earliest of these is O.S. No. 81 of 1953 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tellicherry wherein the petitioner's father was the 9th defendant and the 1st respondent herein, the 3rd defendant. Though the trial court held that the area claimed by the petitioner's father which was identified by the commissioner deputed by court as plots X-1 to X-6 was in the possession of the 1st respondent and that she was entitled thereto, this finding was set aside and the matter left open in A.S. No. 75 of 1956 (K) taken before this Court by the petitioner's father.

4. This controversy continued. The first respondent challeneged the gra