Writ jurisdiction for police protection is inappropriate in property disputes where the petitioner is a co-owner out of possession and civil litigation regarding title or possession is pending; such matters must be adjudicated through civil courts.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner claims to be the owner of a property having an extent of 0.273 hectares in Re-survey No. 535 in Melarkode Village, Alathoor Taluk, Palakkad, which he purchased it from the husband of the third respondent in the year 2010. Alleging that the third respondent failed to transfer ownership of the property within the agreed period, a suit was instituted as O.S.No.534/2011 before the Sub Court, Palakkad, which was decreed in favour of the petitioner. Since the decree was not complied with, E.P.No.27/2020 was filed and subsequently, sale deed was registered on the direction of the Executive Court, and Ext.P1 sale deed was executed on 21.08.2025. Petitioner alleges that, despite being the owner of the property, the third respondent is restraining him from enjoying it and has even trespassed into the property and harassing the petitioner whenever attempts are made to enter into the property. Petitioner alleges that the third respondent is, along with certain individuals of questionable background, intimidating and threatening him, thereby preventing him from having any access to his own property. It is in such circumstances that this writ petition has been filed seeking police protection.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 3 and 4, pointing out that an ex parte decree was obtained in O.S.No. 534/2011, and when execution proceedings were initiated as per Ext.R3(a) order, the executing court held that the rights, if any, of the petitioner and her sister therein shall not be assigned in favour of the writ petitioner. It was thereafter that Ext.P1 was executed, and as such, the third respondent is a co-owner of the property along with the 4^th respondent and that they are residing in the residential house of the said property. It is also stated that O.S.No.4/2026 has been filed before the Munsiff Court, Alathur which is pending consideration.

3. I have heard Sri.Jerry Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.P.B.Subramanyan, the learned counsel for respondents 3 and

4, apart from Smt.Amminikutty K., the learned Government Pleader.

4. Petitioner and the third respondent are concededly co-owners of the property, each holding a percentage of share in the property. The civil suit filed by the third respondent as O.S.No.4/2026 before the Munsiff Court, Alathur is pending consideration. The writ petitioner has not yet sought for any partition of the property, at the same time, it is specifically pleaded that he is attempting to enter into his property which is being prevented by respondents 3 and 4 indicating that the petitioner is not in possession of the property. In such circumstances, when the civil rights of the parties are required to be adjudicated, it is not proper for this Court to issue any police protection, as that may have a bearing on the pending civil disputes as well as in a possible civil litigation that may require to be initiated. Reference in this context to the decision in Padmanabhan N. v. State of K erala and Others [2024 KHC 7177] is relevant.

5. Even though the petitioner is concededly a co-owner of the property, he is admittedly not in possession of it. Therefore, it is evident that petitioner’s attempt to obtain police protection is an effort to gain defacto possession. When such remedies are to be obtained through a civil court in a properly instituted suit, I am of the view that recourse to jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not proper.

Therefore this writ petition has to fail.

6. Hence, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings before the civil court in accor