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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 6245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
JOSE VARGHESE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNANALLUR POLICE STATION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 46377 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.V.PREMCHAND, SMT.C.P.MANISHA
For the Respondents: SMT. AMMINIKUTTY K., SR.GP

A registered owner has the right to remove their property without obstruction by prior claimants.

Headnote:The Court analyzed the petitioner's claim under relevant laws regarding ownership transfer and possession. The Court found that the petitioner, as the registered owner of the disputed Road Roller, should not be obstructed. The main issues involved were regarding the legal right to possession and police protection sought against the second respondent’s obstruction. The Court ruled that adequate police protection must be provided to the petitioner for removing the vehicle without obstruction.

Table of Content
1. ownership rights and prior claims (Para 1 , 2)
2. hearing and legal representation (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's directive for police action (Para 5 , 6)

JUDGMENT

Petitioner claims to have purchased a Road Roller from Mr.Anu Babu, pursuant to Ext.P1 agreement for sale. Ext.P2 is the sale receipt.

2. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent started obstructing the petitioner from removing the Road Roller from the prior owner since certain amounts were allegedly due to him from the prior owner. Since the 2nd respondent started obstructing the removal of the vehicle from the area where it is parked, the petitioner filed a complaint before the police seeking police protection and as they failed to respond, this writ petition was filed.

3. Though notice to the 2nd respondent has been served, none appears on his behalf.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.

5. The petitioner claims that the Road Roller purchased by him has been registered in his name as per the registration certificate dated 09.12.2025, obtained after the filing of this writ petition. Since the petitioner has become the registered owner of the Road Roller, he cannot be prevented from removing the same from the premises of the prior owner or from where it is parked in the absence of any legal hurdles. Since no legal hurdles have been shown to be in existence against the petitioner owning and possessing the said Road Roller now bearing No.KL17B 4595, I am of the view that the petitioner can be afforded the necessary police protection as sought for.

6. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to afford adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner to remove the vehicle bearing No.KL17B 4595 from the limits of the 1st respondent's jurisdiction without any obstruction from the 2nd respondent.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

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