M P KARTHIYAYANI AMMA Vs. SUSHEELAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a 72 year old woman, has come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions to the 3rd respondent to afford police protection to the petitioner against the threat to the life and person caused to her by respondents 1 and 2, who are none other than her sisters.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, she is the owner of an item of property which has been bequeathed in her favour by her mother. In that property there is a residential building also. She is residing along with the daughter and grand daughter. Respondents 1 and 2 are indulging in contumacious, culpable and violent acts. What are such acts? It is stated that they are trespassing into the property and interfering with the right of residence of the petitioner in the property along with the daughter and grand daughter.

(3.) PETITIONER then contends that respondents 1 and 2 are indulging in contumacious and culpable acts. This allegation is stoutly denied by respondents 1 and 2. The counsel submits that they are old women aged 62 and 60 years. The allegations are totally false. The petitioner's attempt is to steal a march over the respondents 1 and 2 in the civil litigation and to avoid delay in execution of the decree for partition. The petitioner is not in law entitled to claim exclusive possession over the property in dispute. Consequently, we do not think it necessary to issue a direction regarding enjoyment of the property under Article 226. There is an allegation of culpable contumacious conduct on the part of respondents 1 and 2. That allegation is stoutly denied .