IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 30TH MAGHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 6342 OF 2023 PETITIONER:

T. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR AGED 76 YEARS S/O. LATE C. CHARADAN NAIR, RESIDING AT EDAPANI, BEDADUKA VILLAGE, BEDADKA.P.O., KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN - 671541 BY ADVS.

K.SHRIHARI RAO M.C.MONY N.SHOBHA RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE POLICE CHIEF (DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE)

HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010

2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF (SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE)

KASARAGOD, VIDHYANAGAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671123

3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE BEDAKAM POLICE STATION, POST MUNNAD, (VIA) CHENGALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671541 4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE BEDAKAM POLICE STATION, POST MUNNAD, (VIA) CHENGALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671541

5 K. BALAMANI AGED 50 YEARS K. BALAMANI, W/O. K.M. CHANDUKUTTY, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O. K.M.NARAYANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT MANGAD, KADAVANGANAM HOUSE, BARA VILLAGE AND POST, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671319

6 SHIBU, AGED 35 YEARS S/O. KUNHI KELU NAIR, AGED 35 YEARS, MANGAD , KADAVANGANAM HOUSE, BARA VILLAGE AND POST, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671319

7 HARSHA.K. NAIR AGED 28 YEARS D/O. K.M. CHANDUKUTTY, W/O. SHIBU, AGED 28 YEARS, MANGAD ,KADAVANGANAM HOUSE, BARA VILLAGE AND POST, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671319 BY ADVS.

MARTIN ROY P A LIMJITH K.J.(K/1336/2018) K.S.JAYASUDHA(K/699/2007)

OTHER PRESENT:

GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2025

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents

1 to 4 to afford adequate police protection to the life and properties of the petitioner and his family from the threats of the respondents 5 to 7 and their men.

2. The petitioner had filed O.S. No.116/2011 before the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kasaragod, against one K.M. Chandukutty, who expired on 25.11.2022, leaving behind his wife/5th respondent and his daughter/7th respondent. The 6th respondent is the son-in-law of the deceased. Although the suit was dismissed, the petitioner has filed RFA No. 768/2013, which is pending consideration before this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the party respondents are attempting to trespass into the property of the petitioner and cause law and order problems. Hence, the petitioner has submitted Ext. P5 complaint before the fourth respondent. As the matter is sub judice before this Court, the party respondents have no right to trespass into the property of the petitioner and cause any threat to him.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. The respondents 5 to 7 have filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts. In fact, the fifth respondent had purchased the property from the petitioner’s father. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed O.S.No.99/1994 before the Court of Munisiff, Kasaragod, for various reliefs. The suit was decreed and was concurrently confirmed by this Court in S.A. No.241/1998. Even though the petitioner had filed a Special Leave Petition before the Honourable Supreme Court, the same was also dismissed. It is after that the petitioner filed the suit, which was dismissed, and the same is pending consideration in appeal before this Court. The petitioner has no legal right to enter the property of the respondents 5 to 7. It is to circumvent the findings of the Civil Court, that the petitioner has filed the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

4. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 7.

5. On a consideration of the facts, the materials on record, and the rival submissions made across that Bar, I find that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 5 to 7 is civil in nature.

6. In Padman