Decree holder entitled to police protection for property possession post-concluded civil proceedings; obstructions invalid without fresh legal claims.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner herein, a septuagenarian, seeks police protection from the high-handed actions of respondents 5 to 9 in the matter of enjoying their landed property, over which they have perfected their title by virtue of a decree and judgment of the competent Civil Court in a suit instituted way back in the year 1981.

2. The attendant facts The petitioner was the plaintiff in the suit, O.S.No.804/1981, before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The suit was one for declaration of title and also for injunction. The same was decreed. The respondents herein, who were the defendants in the suit, carried an appeal as A.S.No.21/1993 before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. In the Sub Court, the respondents herein raised an issue of kudikidappu, based upon which the matter was referred to the Land Tribunal. The claim for kudikidappu was dismissed by the Land Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff filed Execution Petition as E.P.No.78/2015, and the petitioner has taken delivery. It is the petitioner's case that, on the next day, the respondents and their henchmen expelled the petitioner from the property. The petitioner earlier approached this Court, seeking police protection, which culminated in Ext.P5 judgment, directing efficacious police protection to the petitioner. However, despite the same, police protection was not granted, is the grievance. The sum and substance of the petitioner's grievance now is that she is not in a position to enjoy the property, over which she obtained title, by virtue of concluded civil proceedings.

3. Learned counsel for the party respondents 5 to 9 would submit that the petitioner's enjoyment in respect of the property specifically taken delivery of, is not being obstructed. Learned counsel handed over a judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.23699 of 2017, wherein it is stated in paragraph no.4, that there was a settlement between the parties, and 13 cents was given to the judgment debtors, and the balance portion was taken by the decree holder. It could thus be seen that the judgment debtors/respondents have title over 13 cents.

4. Learned Government Pleader would submit that Ext.P6 petition was filed only on 24.05.2025 and this Writ Petition was filed on 19.06.2025, without waiting for the result of Ext.P6. It was also pointed out that the prayer sought for in Ext.P6 is to prevent the respondents from causing any obstruction to the measurement of the petitioner's property, for the purpose of sale.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should be afforded with adequate and efficacious police protection, as directed in Ext.P5 judgment of this Court. It is noticed that the petitioner got title to the property in the suit filed way back in 1981. The suit was decreed, declaring the petitioner's title and injuncting the respondents herein. An appeal carried therefrom was also dismissed. The petitioner has taken delivery of a property in an E.P. It could thus be seen that the entire civil proceedings in terms of the Code of Civil Procedure has been concluded. Therefore, there cannot be any obstruction caused to the petitioner by any of the contesting respondents. The surviving claims, if any, of the contesting respondents has to be established in accordance with due procedure of law before the competent court/authority. The same having not been done, the respondents cannot be heard to obstruct the petitioner, either in the matt