LALITHAMMA Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court with the following prayers:

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a senior citizen and she is residing in the house situated in RS.No.681/5 of Vamanapuram Village, Venjaramoodu and she has no other residence. She is the co- owner in joint possession of the property and building therein by virtue of the Partition Deed No.24000 of 1122 M.E. There is reference to a Settlement Deed executed in favour of the petitioner and her brothers and sisters. Tharwad house was kept in the common share of the thavazhy. The settlement deed was acted upon and after thirty years, in 1996 a Settlement Deed is executed in reference to even the properties already allotted to the petitioner and her children by the mother incorporating and allotting the Tharwad house and the property where it is situated, kept in common use of thavazhy as per Settlement Deed of 1966, without the knowledge and participation of the petitioner and her children which is as such invalid. The tharwad house is kept for the common use of the thavazhy wherein the petitioner is residing. When respondents 2 to 4 who are joint owners only, started to alienate the property, the petitioner filed a Suit vide Ext.P1. When the defendants tried to commit waste and remove valuable timber from the property, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application as per Ext.P2 seeking temporary prohibitory injunction. Ext.P3 is the order of temporary injunction passed by the Sub Court, Nedumangadu. It is stated that to wreak vengeance, on 10.4.2010 respondents 2 to 4 enjoyed goondas to kill the petitioner and attempted to push her into the well situated in the plaint schedule property. Due to the intervention of local people, the petitioner survived the attempt. Petitioner filed Ext.P4 complaint. Complaining of inaction, petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, there is a civil suit filed by the petitioner, wherein property rights are in question. Ext.P3 is the interim order passed. We notice that even though the petitioner sought a direction for restraining the defendants from ousting the petitioner, the interim order granted is only that the property shall not be alienated. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 would submit that respondents 2 and 3 have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner. We record the said submission. In the nature of the case, we would think that it is not appropriate for us to interfere in the matter and we relegate the petitioner to pursue her remedy before the civil court. Besides recording the submission of the party respondents that they have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner, we direct that in case the petitioner complains of commission of any cognizable offence by respondents 2 and 3 before the first respondent, the first respondent shall take action in accordance with law on the said complaint. Even in respect of Ext.P4 petition, if the petitioner has complained of WPC.16996/2010 Y 6 commission of any cognizable offence by respondents 2 and 3, effective action shall be taken in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.