K. Harilal, J.

Briefly put, the averments in the writ petition are as follows :-

The petitioner purchased 12 cents of property from one Smt. Sarojini, the predecessor in title by virtue of registered Assignment Deed No.21/1993 of Sub Registrar's Office, Malappruam. After purchase of the property, when the petitioner started to transport materials through the property of the petitioner to construct a house, Nambola Narayanan, the predecessor in interest of respondents 4 to 9 herein obstructed the same and that culminated in intervention of police. Thereupon Nambola Narayanan, the predecessor in interest of the respondents filed O.S.No.169 of 1995 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Manjeri against the petitioner for restraining the petitioner from cutting upon a way through item Nos. 2 and 3 of the plaint schedule property, entering into the said property or using the said property as a way or plying vehicles through the said property. A mandatory injunction was also sought for in the suit, to restore the demolished portion of the compound wall on the eastern side of item Nos. 2 and 3 of the plaint schedule property. On the death of Nambola Narayanan, respondents 4 to 9 herein were impleaded in the suit as supplemental plaintiffs. The contention of respondents 4 to 9 was that the property was orally entrusted to Nambola Narayanan by one Velayudhan and Govindan with whom the property was outstanding on tenancy rights. It was contended that jenmam rights of the properties which was vested in the Government was obtained by Nambola Narayanan by virtue of Purchase Certificate issued to him in the year 1979 from the Land Tribunal, Malappuram and that Nambola Narayanan was having jenmam rights and possession over item No. 3 of the plaint schedule property. It was also contended that item No.3 of the plaint schedule property was taken by entrustment from Velayudhan and Govindan and as a way to the burial ground situate on the south. The dispute in the suit was with respect to item No.3 of the plaint schedule property in the suit. The petitioner contended that Nambola Narayanan, the predecessor in interest of respondents 4 to 9 has got neither title nor possession over item No.3 of the plaint schedule property. It was also contended that item No.3 of the plaint schedule property is taken in by Assignment Deed in favour of the petitioner. The suit was decreed as prayed for by Ext.P1 Judgment dated 12.08.2003. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Court, Manjeri and the appeal was allowed by Ext.P3 Judgment and Ext.P2 decree of the trial court was set aside. The respondents 4 to 9 preferred 2nd appeal before the High Court. It was also dismissed by Ext.P5 Judgment.

2. Now the petitioner wanted to construct a compound wall and to erect a gate in item No.3 of the plaint schedule property. Coming to know of this, respondents 4 to 9 preferred a complaint before the 1st respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, alleging that the petitioner along with his wife and son trespassed into the property of respondents 4 to 9. The petitioner was summoned to the police station by the 1st respondent. The petitioner apprised true facts before the 1st respondent. The petitioner filed a complaint against respondents 4 to 9, sought for police protection in view of the Judgment of this Court, dismissing the respondents' claim over the property and accepting the petitioner's right over the property. Respondents 1 to 3 were bound to afford police protection to carry out works in the property in view of Exts.P3 and P5 Judgments. But they did not give protection so far for the construction in the petitioner's property and the threat is still continuing. Therefore the petitioner prayed for order of this Court, directing respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate police protection to carry out construction works in item No.3 property scheduled to Ext.P2 decree. Respondents 4 to 9 filed a counter affidavit, inter alia contending that the petitioner herei