P. Devadass, J.

1. This Writ Appeal has been directed as against the order of the Writ Court in W.P.No.4886 of 2004, whereunder the Court had declined to issue mandamus to 3rd respondent to give police protection to fence the petitioner's property and take necessary action to prevent trespass.

2. Though the writ petition appears to be a simple writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the police to give police protection, but, actually it has a checkered career from Munsif Court to Supreme Court.

3. 3.22 acres of property comprised in Survey Nos.187/1, 187/2 and 187/3 situated in Vanaharam Village, in Poonamallee Taluk, in Kancheepuram District. One Elumalai Chettiar staked claim to this property that he had purchased it at a Court auction sale in 1935. In 1960, as between Elumalai Chettiar and his sons Balakrishnan Chettiar and Sundaresan Chettiar there was partition. The subject land measuring 2.44 acres comprised in Survey No.187/3D-2 was allotted to Sundaresan Chettiar. Sundaresan Chettiar's son is appellant Sankar.

4. While alive, Sundaresan Chettiar witnessed a long drawn legal battle from Munsif Court to Supreme Court. After his demise, his son Sankar is continuing the battle. The present W.A.No.764 of 2009 which arose from W.P.No.4886 of 2004 is a part of it.

5. In 1971, some Muslims have filed O.S.No.674 of 1971 in the Court of District Munsif, Poonamallee seeking injunction as against Sundaresan Chettiar that he shall not restrain them in their worshiping at the mosque situated in the said property. On 17.12.1981, the worshipers have lost in the Munsif's Court and also in the next Appellate Court(Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu) in A.S.No.51 of 1982. However, on 10.1.1992, they have won in the next appellate Court/High Court in S.A.No.224 of 1984. Thus, Sundaresan Chettiar was injected from preventing the Muslim Worshipers in their worshiping at the mosque in the suit property. The Chettiar went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court filing Civil Appeal No.5334 of 1993. The President, Porur Shaik Maniyam Masjid-E-Ehairunnissa Muslim Jamath unsuccessfully tried to implead in the said Civil Appeal on the ground that there is a public mosque in the property. On 3.10.2002, the Hon'ble Apex Court holding that no public mosque existed in the property set aside the judgment of this Court and restored the judgments of the Munsif Court and the Sub-Court.

6. Thereafter, Abdhul Kareem (the present 4th respondent) for and on behalf of the Jamath filed the representative suit in O.S.No.100 of 2005 seeking injunction. Sankar and other legal heirs have filed I.A.No.695 of 2005 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. to reject the plaint. It was dismissed. However, in C.R.P.No.1237 of 2006, this Court allowed it and rejected the plaint. On 8.7.2008, the S.L.P filed by the Jamath was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the meanwhile, the Sub Collector, Ponneri initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. treating the Jamath people as 'B' party and Sankar and others as 'A' party. On 2.8.2007, in Crl.O.P.No.5578 of 2005 and in Crl.R.C.676 of 2005, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the Crl.O.P. and Cr.R.C. and set aside the order of the Sub Collector, Ponneri.

7. Thereafter, Sankar wanted to fence the property. He gave representation to the police to give police protection. Since it was not accorded, he filed W.P.No.4886 of 2004. On 28.4.2009, the Writ Court taking note of the existence of a dilapidated building in the disputed property and the prior litigations observed as under:-

"However, the undisputed facts remains that admittedly a dilapidated building is in existence as on date in the disputed property the 4th respondent claimed that he has put up the said construction and there was a mosque in existence for the last 200 years. But, it is pertinent to note that as per the ultimate decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.A.No.5334 of 1993 dated 3.10.2002 restoring the view taken by the tri