ANNA NEEMA ROY Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed seeking directions to the respondents 1 to 3 to afford protection to the life and property of the petitioner and her family members from the party respondents.

(2.) The petitioner states that the 5th respondent herein induced her father to assign the property wherein she and her family members reside. Thereafter he assigned the property to the 6th respondent herein. With intent to evict the petitioner forcibly from the house, the 6th respondent instituted a suit before the Munsiff Court and obtained an order of injunction. In the meanwhile, her father instituted a suit before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha to set aside the sale deed and the same is pending. According to the petitioner, ignoring the pendency of the suit, the respondents attempted to enter into the property by force on 12.9.2020 and tried to demolish the building using earthmovers. She states that certain atrocities were committed by the party respondents and stating the above, complaints were lodged before the 2nd respondent. She has also filed a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking to take cognizance against the respondents. It is in the above backdrop that she has approached this Court seeking directions to the police.

(3.) The respondents 5 to 8 have filed a counter. It is stated that the 5th respondent had purchased an item of property having an extent of 64.75 Ares comprised in Memury village along with the building situated therein from a certain Varghese, the grandfather of the petitioner, by virtue of a sale deed executed in the year 2012. The petitioner's mother was a witness to the deed. Mutation was effected in the name of the 5th respondent and he also remitted property tax. After purchasing the property as aforesaid, based on understanding between the parties, the 5th respondent had permitted the daughter-in-law of the assignor, Smt. Molly, to reside in the building situated in the said property. The petitioner is the daughter of Smt.Molly. It is stated that the lease was renewed regularly and the latest one was executed on 27.11.2019. He states that in the year 2018, the property was assigned by the 5th respondent in favour of the 6th respondent on the strength of Ext.R5(a) sale deed. He would refer to Ext.R5(j) judgment and it is argued that the 5th respondent earlier approached this Court seeking to register the document without insisting for the production of RoR and this Court had allowed the same. According to the respondents, the 6th respondent has already approached the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha and has instituted O.S.No. 288 of 2020 seeking for an order of permanent injunction against the parents of the petitioner and in the said suit, the learned Munsiff has passed an interim order restraining the parents of the petitioner or anybody claiming under them from trespassing into the 'C' schedule property or from any obstruction to the peaceful enjoyment of 'C' schedule. It is contended that in the said suit, the building in which the petitioner is presently residing is scheduled as 'B' Schedule. In Ext.R5(l) plaint, the 6th respondent has asserted that he has no intention to forcibly evict the defendants in the suit, who are the parents of the petitioner from 'B' schedule property or to obstruct their ingress or egress other than by due process of law. They would contend that the allegation that the party respondents attempted to forcibly evict the petitioner and her family members from the house they are residing is absolutely incorrect. However, it is stated that the 6th respondent has every right to peacefully enjoy the plaint 'C' schedule property purchased by him as per Annexure-R5(a) deed and this has been permitted by the Civil Court as well.