JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he is presently in Ajman, UAE, and intents to return to India, to reside in his property covered by Ext.P2 document. He explains that the property and the building originally belonged to his family, where his mother was residing until she died; and that, subsequently, all his siblings, except Respondent No. 6, released their shares in his favour, as evident from Ext. P2. He says that, however, now the 6th respondent, with the assistance of respondents 5 and 7, are attempting to usurp the said property to themselves and have been meting out threats and intimidation to him.

2. The petitioner explains that, in fact, the 5th respondent had even attempted to attack him while he was in UAE; and, therefore, that he fears for his life when he returns to India. He says that the situation has been exacerbated because, after the mother’s death, he allowed the 8th respondent to remain in the house solely for the purpose of lighting a lamp on in front of her photograph and take care of the house, but that she is also now attempting to assert rights, which are untenable. He says that since he is suffering from various ailments, including cardiac issues, any attack on him when he returns to India by the party respondents, could be unbearable and hence that he has preferred Ext.P9 to the 2nd respondent and Ext.P10 before the Superintendent of Police seeking protection, but that no action has been taken thereon; and hence that he has been constrained to approach this Court through this writ petition.

3. Shri. Prasoon Sunny - learned counsel for the petitioner, further explained that Ext.P6 is the translation of the complaint preferred by his client in UAE against the 5th respondent, when he was attacked there; and that the threatening messages that were issued to him by the other respondents have been produced on record as Exts.P4 and P5 respectively. He says that, though the police are expected to conduct proper investigation, they have refused to do so, in spite of the fact that he had approached the Chief Minister of Kerala through Ext.P8; and that this has emboldened them to mete out further threats to him. He prayed that this writ petition be allowed and the prayers sought for in this writ petition be granted.

4. In response, Smt. Aleena George - appearing for the party respondents, submitted that the afore allegations are all untrue and that the petitioner is trying to reap undue advantage, by obtaining orders from this Court. She submitted that the petitioner has already filed OS No.113 of 2024 for partition before the Munsiff Court, Kollam and that the same is still pending, wherein, her clients intend to enter appearance and defend it. She argued that the assertions of the petitioner, that he is the owner of the property and the building, is untrue and that his attempt is to obtain orders from this Court and to assert such undeserving rights obliquely. She, however, added that her clients have not and do not intend to cause any threat or intimidation to the petitioner, nor to obstruct him from entering the house, since he has a share in it, like any other sibling; and hence prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

5. Smt. Rekha C. Nair - learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that the petitioner appears to have approached this court with an apprehended cause of action because he is still not in India. She added that whenever he wants to return to India, he is at liberty to inform the 3rd respondent - Station House Officer, who will afford him necessary protection to enter the house and to remain there in peace. She added that the police can do nothing more because, the disputes between the parties appear to be in the civil realm, into which they cannot intervene.

6. I have no doubt that the afore stand of the police is the most apposite in the circumstances because, as rightly argued by the learned Senior Government Pleader, it is not within their province to enter into civil disputes or to take