A party's entitlement to property rights cannot be disputed after adverse judicial determinations in previous claims.

JUDGMENT

Writ Petition seeks the grant of police protection.

2. Petitioner's husband Sri. Madalamuthu Jnanaprakasam was the 5^th defendant in OS No.454 of 1987 filed before the Munsiff Court, Palakkad. The suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property was filed by the father of respondents 3 to 5. By judgment dated 13.07.2000, the Munsiff Court dismissed the suit. An appeal was preferred as AS No.285 of 2000 before the District Court, Palakkad and by judgment dated 25.10.2005, the said appeal was also dismissed. A Second Appeal filed as RSA No.206/2006 before this Court, by respondents 3 to 5, i.e., the legal heirs of the original plaintiff was dismissed on 05.08.2025. Thus, the property dispute between the predecessor of the petitioner and the predecessor of respondents 3 to 5 have ended in favour of the petitioner and her predecessor.

3. Despite the civil suit having been dismissed against respondents 3 to 5, petitioner alleges that the respondents are objecting to the petitioner constructing a fence around her property. When police assistance was requested, they refused to provide any help, pointing out the earlier civil dispute. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking appropriate directions for the grant of police protection to her and her workers to peaceful possession and occupation of the property covered by the judgment of the Civil Court as well as that of this Court produced as Exts.P2,P3 and P4.

4. Though notices to respondents 3 to 5 have been served by special messenger, none appears on their behalf.

5. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that there is no law and order situation warranting any interference by the police and that, as and when required, the police are ready to provide necessary protection.

6. The petitioner's husband was one of the defendants in the suit filed by the father of respondents 3 to 5. The suit, appeal and second appeal were all dismissed against the predecessor of respondents 3 to 5. Therefore, the claim for recovery of possession having been denied by the civil court, the property dispute cannot be said to be existing. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to construct a fence around her property that was involved in the suit as OS No. 454 of 1987 filed before the Munsiff Court, Palakkad.

7. Considering the totality of the circumstances, as well as on a reading of the judgments produced as Exts.P2,P3 and P4, I am of the view that the entitlement of the petitioner to construct a fence over her property cannot be disputed by respondents 3 to 5. Hence the petitioner is entitled for the protection as claimed.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to afford adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner and her workers to enjoy the property, that was the subject matter of dispute in the judgment in OS No.454 of 1987 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Palakkad as confirmed by the judgment in RSA No.206 of 2006 on the files of this Court, without any illegal attack or obstructions from respondents 3 to 5. The writ petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-