PRABHU Vs. INDIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge against the judgment in O.P.8185 of 1993 by the appellant is on the ground that there is no justification for the learned Single Judge to have granted police protection in a case which is essentially a civil dispute between the contesting parties.

(2.) First respondent (petitioner in O.P.) (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) filed the Original Petition contending inter alia that she had locked her house and proceeded to reside with her youngest son Yogesh on 24-5-1993 as she fell ill and on return on 1-6-1993 the original locks placed by her on the gate and in the front door of the house were found removed and new locks put up, that on enquiry she came to realise that it was the officers of the appellant Devaswom (landlord of the building) who engineered this and that her efforts to get the keys proved futile. According to the respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Police and Divisional Inspector of Police, Mattancherry promised to bestow their attention into the matter but did not afford her any protection. It is her case that her deceased husband had bequeathed properties belonging to him to her, that her three sons demanded share of assets from her, that she was not amenable to the same as she was in a state of mourning consequent to the death of her husband, that she filed Ext. P2 petition before the Circle Inspector of Police, that he sent for her two sons Kiran and Deepam and advised them to behave properly and that Deepam had filed a suit against her and two sons for injunction restraining her from operating the accounts and from opening the safe deposit locker that was hired by her husband. It is also stated that Deepam had obtained injunction restraining his brothers from forcibly evicting him from the house. According to her, Deepam removed his articles from the building where she was residing and as she fell ill on 24-5-1993 she was forced to lock the house and proceeded to reside with her youngest son Yogesh and it was when she returned that she found that the original locks placed by her on the gate and in the front door of the house were removed and new locks put up. Contention of the respondent is that this was done by the officers of the appellant Devaswom.

(3.) Appellant in the counter affidavit filed in the Original Petition stated that on 22-5-1993 after the inventory of the articles was prepared the respondent and her sons surrendered possession of the house to the appellant, that they agreed that the articles left in the house would be removed within a few days as none of them wanted to reside in the building, that Deepam had given Ext.R3(c) letter intimating about the surrender, that after surrender of the building by the respondent and her sons the appellant - Devaswom locked the building and the gate using their locks and that though respondent and her sons had agreed to remove all the articles left in the house within a few days they failed to do so.