Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC, DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ
MARIYAMMA CLETUS – Appellant
Versus
BINU JOSEPH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 28482/2017
Property - Civil Dispute - Writ Section List - The court determined that a civil dispute exists between the parties regarding property ownership, which necessitates resolution in civil court rather than through police protection orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claims ownership of a property and seeks police protection from the fourth respondent, who allegedly threatens and intimidates her. The fourth respondent contests the petitioner's ownership, claiming a fraudulent transfer of property.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the existence of a civil dispute over property ownership and advised that the appropriate remedy lies within the civil courts, rather than through the writ petition for police protection.
Issues: Whether a writ petition for police protection can be entertained when a civil dispute regarding property ownership is pending.
Ratio Decidendi: A civil dispute must be resolved in civil court, and police protection cannot be granted in such circumstances.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of with permission for the petitioner to pursue civil remedies.
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
1. aPetitioner seeks orders of police protection against the fourth respondent on the basis that she is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 2.02 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.1047 of Thekkumbhagom Village of Karunagappally Taluk with two storied residential building. It is stated that the said property was purchased by the petitioner's husband from the father of the fourth respondent and thereafter, the same was settled in favour of the petitioner by Document No.4586/2001 of Chavara S.R.O. She alleges that she is occupying the first floor of the building and the ground floor is let out to a tenant. It is also stated that the fourth respondent is repeatedly breaking W. P. (C) No.28482 of 2017 open the door and forcefully occupying the property, causing threat after threatening and intimidating the petitioner. It is with these allegations, the writ petition is filed.
2. However, from the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader and Ext.P2 judgment of this Court, we find that the allegation of the fourth respondent is that his father had mortgaged the property to the petitioner's husband and that forging the signature of his father, the petitioner's husband transferred the property on his own name and settled the property to the petitioner. It is stated that the suit instituted by the fourth respondent is already pending. It is also seen that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for police protection. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment finding the existence of civil dispute and also that the remedy available is already in the civil court.
3. Evidently, therefore, there exists civil dispute W. P. (C) No.28482 of 2017 between the parties and therefore, even if it is a case that the fourth respondent is trespassing into the property of the petitioner, the remedy available is to approach the civil court itself.
Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy in the civil court, the writ petition is disposed of.
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
