A decree's enforcement necessitates police protection to uphold property rights when faced with obstructions, reinforcing the obligation to respect civil judgments.

JUDGMENT

K.T.Sankaran, J.

The relief prayed for in this Writ Petition is to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 and 2 to give adequate and sufficient police protection to the petitioner to construct compound wall on the eastern and northern sides of the property in terms of Exhibit P1 decree. There was a property dispute between the petitioner and others on the one hand and the party respondents on the other. According to the petitioner, the property belonged in jenmam to the tarward of Krishnan. In the tarward partition, the property in question was allotted to Krishnan. After the death W.P.(C) No.20855/2016 F 2 of Krishnan, his rights devolved on his sister and brother (Lakshmi and Kunhiraman respectively). Both of them passed away. According to the petitioner, herself and seven others are the legal representatives of Lakshmi and Kunhiraman. O.S.No.154 of 1986 was filed by Lakshmi and Kunhiraman against respondent Nos.6 and 7, Narayanan (husband of respondent No.3 and father of respondent Nos.4 and 5) as well as one Sathi, for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of an extent of 15 cents of land in R.S.No.19/1 of Elayavoor amsom. It is submitted that Lakshmi died during the pendency of appeal arising from the suit and the petitioner was impleaded as additional respondent in the appeal. The suit was decreed as per Exhibit P1 decree dated 28.2.1990. Exhibit P6 is the judgment in O.S.No.154 of 1986. The Commissioner submitted Exhibit P2 sketch in the suit. Against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.154 of 1986, Sathi, the fourth defendant W.P.(C) No.20855/2016 F 3 in the suit, filed A.S.No.70 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Thalassery. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. Sathi filed S.A.No.488 of 1992 before this Court challenging the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. This Court dismissed S.A.No.488 of 1992 as per Exhibit P7 judgment dated 20th March, 2003. The plaint schedule property was delivered to the decree holders.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the decree passed by the civil court, which was confirmed in Appeal and Second Appeal, the petitioner was prevented by the party respondents from constructing a compound wall on the eastern and northern sides of her property. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the property of S.N.Trust is situated on the western side of the property in dispute. The defendants in the suit, under whom the party respondents claim, put forward a contention before the trial court that they are entitled to an W.P.(C) No.20855/2016 F 4 extent of 39.5 cents of land. The plaintiffs in the suit contended that the defendants are entitled to only an extent of 23 cents of land and that property was claimed by them as legal representatives of the lessee Kalliani. The lease was granted in favour of Kalliani by Krishnan, the predecessor interest of the petitioner. The civil Court conclusively held that the property on the eastern side of the petitioner's property (plaint schedule property) belongs to the defendants in the suit and the extent of the same is only 23 cents. The civil court also found that the extent of the property in the possession of the plaintiffs (under whom the petitioner claims), is 15 cents of land and it was identified by the Commissioner.

3. The party respondents, in the counter affidavit, have put forward the very same contentions which were put forward by them in the suit and which were rejected by the trial court, the appellate court and the High Court. They contend that the W.P.(C) No.20855/2016 F 5 petitioner has to approach the civil court again to fix the actual boundary. Even a false contention that the party respondents do not share a boundary with the petitioner is also seen raised in the counter affidavit. That contention is falsified by Exhibits P6 and P7 judgments in the suit as well as in the Second Appeal. Thus it can be seen that the contentions put f