SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Mad) 2906

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
G. Revathi - Petitioners
Versus
The District Collector, Chennai & Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 20931 of 2018 & Crl.OP No. 20020 of 2018 & WMP No. 24573 of 2018
Decided On : 04-12-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:R. Sankarasubbu, Advocate.
For the Respondents:M. Mohamed Riyaz, APP, R. Karthikeyan, R. Bharanidharan, Advocates.

Relief cannot be granted without establishing rights in a pending suit.

Headnote:

Police Protection - Property Dispute - Cr.P.C

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought police protection in a property dispute involving multiple parties. The court found the conduct of the parties questionable and dismissed the petitions.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's conduct was questionable and that the relief sought could not be granted.

Issues: Property dispute, misuse of legal process, police protection

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's conduct was questionable and that relief could not be granted without establishing rights in the pending suit.

Final Decision: Both the Writ Petition and the Criminal Original Petition were dismissed with no order as to cost.

JUDGMENT :

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to direct the respondents to grant Police Protection to the petitioner to live peacefully in his Rental house by removing the rowdy elements from the house at Flat “A”, Flat “B” in First Floor and Flat “C”, Flat “D” in Second Floor, consisting Hall and Give rooms in each Flat situated at Plot No.86 & 808 Part III Main Road, Ram Nagar South, Madipakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Chennai-600 091.)

Common Order:

1. The above Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondent to hold an enquiry against the 3rd and 4th respondent based on the representation made by the petitioner on 05.08.2018. The Criminal Original Petition has been filed by one Perumal Samy seeking for grant of Police Protection.

2. It is seen from records that Sathurappan, Amuthavalli and Revathi are the children of late S.Sathurappan and Rukmani. During the life time of late S.Sathurappan, he had settled certain properties in favour of his son S. Sathurappan. G.Amuthavalli and G.Revathi released their share in the property by virtue of release deed dated 21.02.2008. The said S.Sathurappan in order to give some property to their two son-in-laws, purchased a Plot in the name of the husband of G.Revathi by a registered Sale Deed dated 30.04.2004, and another property in the name of the husband of G. Amuthavalli by a Sale Deed dated 09.03.2005. Thereafter construction was also put up since contribution was made by all the parties, each of them took one portion.

3. It is seen that the above said G. Revathi started raising a dispute and was also demanding a share in the property and was also giving Complaint against S.Sathurappan.

4. The above said G. Revathi filed a suit in O.S.No.5209 of 2016, before the IV Assistant City Civil Court against S. Sathurappan and G. Amuthavalli for the relief of permanent injunction restraining from alienating or encumbering the property and for other reliefs. In the said suit the mother was also made as a plaintiff and she later filed a petition to revoke the vakalat and to transpose her as a defendant. This suit is pending and without disclosing the pendency of this suit, the above said G. Revathi has filed the present Writ Petition.

5. It is also seen from records that the above said G.Revathi has filed C.S.No.183 of 2017, challenging the settlement deed executed by the mother in favour of S.Sathurappan and also the release deed executed by the sisters and had also sought for partition and 1/3rd share in the property.

6. This Writ Petition has been filed by the above said G.Revathi on the ground that her possession was sought to be disturbed in the property which is the subject matter of the above said suit and she was also evicted from the property with the help of Police.

7. It is also seen from records that Perumalsamy has filed O.S.No.261 of 2018, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Alandur, wherein he has shown G.Revathi as the 1st defendant and claimed that he is the tenant in the property, and the said Revathi is the landlord and S.Sathurappan and Amuthavalli are attempting to interfere with the possession of the property, and therefore, he has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining S.Sathurappan and Amuthavalli not to evict him unless otherwise by due process of law. He has also obtained an interim injunction in I.A.No.733 of 2018. In the light of the said interim injunction, the above Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking for Police Protection.

8. Very curiously in this case the same counsel was appearing for G.Revathi and Perumalsamy in both the writ petition and the criminal original petition. It is the very same counsel who had appeared for Perumalsamy in the suit in O.S.No.261 of 2018, in which G.Revathi is the 1st defendant. This by itself prima facie shows that the above said G.Revathi, who was not able to obtain any interim orders in the suit filed by her and which is pending has no





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top