JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to provide Police protection to the petitioner and property bearing Survey No.268/5, 268/6 and 268/7 to an extent of 3.13 acres along with K.G.Thitumana Mandabam, Punjai Puliyampatti - Village, Erode - District based on the complaint lodged before the 3rd respondent dated 13.12.2020 and 18.12.2020.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to provide Police protection to the petitioner and his property bearing Survey Nos.268/5, 268/6 and 268/7 to the extent of 3.13 acres along with K.G.Thirumana Mandabam situated at Punjai Puliyampatti Village, Erode District based on the complaints, dated 13.12.2020 and 18.12.2020.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner lodged a complaint to the 3rd respondent on 13.12.2020 and again, lodged another complaint to the 1st respondent on 18.12.2020 seeking Police protection for him and also for marriage hall viz., K.G.Thirumana Mandabam, Punjai Puliyampatti Village, Erode District which is unauthorizedly locked by the 4th respondent, who is making counter claim over the property. The learned counsel further submitted that Palanisamy and Saraswathy are parents of the petitioner and his maternal uncle is one N.K.Gopal. The said N.K.Gopal had purchased property from the year 1987 to 1998 in Puliyampatty Village in Survey Nos.268/5, 268/6 and 268/7. In the said property, a marriage hall was constructed, wherein the electricity connection, water connection and sewage connection are in the name of N.K.Gopal. On 02.02.2017, a settlement was done by N.K.Gopal in favour of the petitioner’s mother Saraswathy which was registered in document No.268 of 2017. From thereon, the properties were enjoyed by the petitioner and his mother Saraswathy. On 22.11.2017, the petitioner’s mother died. Thereafter, the properties in the name of the petitioner’s mother were enjoyed by the petitioner, his father and his sister. On coming to know about the same, the 4th respondent, the son of N.K.Gopal started giving trouble to the petitioner for the property. Hence, the petitioner, his father Palaniswamy and sister Malarvizhi filed a civil suit in O.S.No.80 of 2018 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Sathyamangalam, in which an application in I.A.No.311 of 2018 was filed. Initially, an interim injunction in I.A.No.311 of 2018 was granted in favour of petitioner and thereafter, made permanent on 14.07.2018, against which the 4th respondent preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the learned III Additional District Judge, Erode, which was dismissed, confirming the permanent injunction granted in favour of the petitioner, against which no Civil Revision Petition was filed. Thus, the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sathyamangalam became final. With regard to the other right over the property, it has to be decided only in O.S.No.80 of 2018.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on 17.11.2020, the petitioner’s maternal uncle N.K.Gopal passed away. The petitioner and his family members were taking part in the last rites ceremony. The marriage hall key was entrusted with one Udhayakumar. The 4th respondent had taken away the key from him and placed another lock. Now, the petitioner’s access and enjoyment of the marriage hall is denied. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the respondents 1 to 3. The specific contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is armed with the orders of the civil Court, despite the same he is unable to enjoy the property. Hence, necessary direction has to be issued to the 1st and 3rd respondent for his peaceful enjoyment of the property.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that in this case, the civil suit in O.S.No.80 of 2018 is still pending between the petitioner and the