P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

1. The appellants in this appeal are not parties to O.P.No.24730 of 1999 filed before this court by respondent No.l herein. The Appellants sought for and obtained permission of this court as per order in C.M.P.No.6150 of 1999 to appeal against the judgment in O.P.No.24730 of 1999.

2. The first respondent herein filed the Original Petition impleading the Circle Inspector of Police and the Sub Inspector of Police, Neyyattinkara and one Rajesh, described as Convenor of Left Democratic Front Election Committee. The prayer in the Original Petition was for issue a writ of mandamus directing the police officers to provide adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner and her family members to have free ingrees to and egress from the property having an extent of 5 cents in survey No. 167/57 l(R.S.No.125.6) of Kunnathukal Village. The first respondent herein, did not disclose in the Original Petition, what exactly was her tital over the property or the transaction on the basis of which she was claiming right and possession over the property. She averred that she had given permission to the third respondent in the Original Petition to put up a temporary shed in the property for the purpose of ensuing election and the shed was not being demolished by respondent No.3 even after the election and inspite of the need for the existence of the shed has ceased. When the first respondent herein attempted to dismantle the shed, she was prevented and threatened by respondent No.3 and his associates. According to the first respondent, she there upon made Ext.Pl, an undated representation before the police officers. It is interesting to notice that even in the Original Petition the date on which the said representation was made was not disclosed.

3. This court ordered notice by special messenger on 4.10.1999 and notice was served. On 8.10.1999, when the Original Petition came up, respondent No.3 therein appearing through counsel submitted that respondent No.3 had no objection to demolish the shed given to the party represented by respondent No.3 for election purpose and respondent No.3 will not obstruct the ingress to and egress from the petitioner's property. Learned Single Judge recorded that and then stated that if there was any objection for demolishing the shed, the petitioner should be ranted adequate protection. It is challenging this decision, that the appellants in this appeal, strangers to the Original Petition, filed the writ appeal with the leave of this court.

4. According to the appellants, the property in question was held by their predecessor as a mortgagee and on his death, the property has devolved on them. The petitioner had no right or possession over it. The petitioner's assignor had also no right or possession. They contended that the property was blocked in survey No. 167/5/1 and it had no sub-division like 1 and 2 as sought to be put forward in the Original Petition. They also pointed out that the suits filed by the legal representatives of the mortgagor on earlier occasions had been dismissed. Thus, the appellants claimed that they were in possession of the property and they had given permission for constructing a shed for election purposes and the petitioner in the Original Petition had no right, possession or authority over the property. A counter affidavit was filed by the first respondent herein, the petitioner in the Original Petition, setting up a case that originally there was an agreement for sale entered into in her favour by the prior owner of the property who obtained title over it under a testamentary disposition and that the agreement for sale was followed up by a sale deed and that was the right the first respondent herein had over the property. The agreement for sale was put forward mainly to rebut the arguments of the appellants that the alleged permission was given on 11.11.1999 whereas the sale deed in favour to the first respondent was executed only on