PONNAMMA Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court seeking the following relief:

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner purchased 25 cents of property from her brothers Santhoshkumar and Sureshkumar, the 5th respondent in the year 2006 and had taken possession of the same. After purchasing the property, she had planted rubber trees in the year 2008 and the saplings are now four years old. Some time after the transfer of the property to the petitioner, her brother Santhoshkumar who is the husband of the fourth respondent, left his home and his whereabouts were not known to anybody. On this issue, there was dispute between the family members and the fourth respondent demanded the petitioner to transfer the property in her name. When the same was denied by the petitioner, the fourth respondent along with her brother, the third respondent, tried to trespass into the property of the petitioner and damaged the rubber saplings by putting fire. Petitioner filed Suit before the Munsiff Court, Punalur and obtained an injunction order against respondents 3 and 4, which is still in force. The fourth respondent by suppressing the injunction order, had obtained an ex parte protection cum residence order from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Punalur against the petitioner and her brother. It was falsely alleged that she was residing in the shed in the petitioner's property. By using the ex parte order, the fourth respondent along with respondents 3, 5 and 6 trespassed into the petitioner's property on 22.12.2011 and occupied the temporary shed in which the petitioner stored manure and implements for cultivation. Petitioner filed a detailed objection before the Magistrate Court and the learned Magistrate after elaborately hearing the parties, found that the fourth respondent had falsely shown the address to obtain an ex parte order from the court and the shed in the property cannot be treated as a shared house-hold and hence the petition was dismissed. It is submitted that respondents 4 to 6 are threatening the petitioner. The rubber saplings planted by the petitioner are of four years old. Agricultural operations must be done. But, respondents 3 to 6 and their henchmen are not permitting the petitioner and her husband or the workers to provide necessary protection to the plantation.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the party respondents, as against the ex parte decree obtained, an application to set aside the same has been filed and it is pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner would impress upon us the urgency, as agricultural operations have to be carried on urgently. He also submits that a petition to execute the decree is pending. In the facts of this case, we are not inclined to grant police protection, exercising our writ jurisdiction. But, at the same time, we feel that the following directions must be given: The parties will appear before the Munsiff Court, Punalur on