KOMALAM RANAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND SUBRAHMANIAN S/O KASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is one of the legal heirs of late Narayanankutty Nair. Along with the other legal heirs, consequent to the death of her father on 19.3.2000, she has stepped into the shoes of her deceased father. The fourth Respondent's father was allegedly managing the properties of late Narayanankutty Nair and was thus exercising the right of management of the property on behalf of the said Narayanankutty Nair. As the fourth Respondent and others objected to the enjoyment of the property by the legal heirs of late Narayanankutty Nair, they filed a suit claiming injunction as also recovery of possession. Decree for recovery of possession has been granted and confirmed by the Appellate Court. The Second Appellate Court has dismissed the challenge in limine by Ext.P1 judgment. Subsequently, delivery of the property has been effected under Ext.P2. Execution proceedings are now complete without any challenge. According to the Petitioner, she and the other legal heirs are thus in possession and enjoyment of the property as rightful owners after Ext.P2 without any dispute.

(2.) According to the Petitioner, there has been subsequent attempts by the fourth Respondent to interfere with their possession and to trespass into the property. Ext.P3 complaint was filed. It was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure Ext.P4 is the FIR. According to the Petitioner, the fourth Respondent is obstructing the enjoyment of the property notwithstanding the decree and delivery effected. He is threatening and intimidating the Petitioner. The Petitioner and the other legal heirs of deceased Narayanankutty Nair apprehend danger to their life and property at the hands of the fourth Respondent. It is with these averments that this petition has been filed.

(3.) The fourth Respondent has been served. But the fourth Respondent has not entered appearance. When the matter came up for hearing on 1.4.2011, an interim direction was issued directing Respondents 1 to 3, "to afford protection for the Petitioner's life and property against the fourth Respondent and his men."