BINU BABU Vs. REHIYANATHU MUSILIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner approaches this Court for police protection against party respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is contended that the petitioner obtained a favourable decree for specific performance of contract regarding purchase of a property from the first respondent as per judgment in OS 62/2013 dated 31.3.2014 from Sub Court, Alappuzha. Exts.P1 and P2 are the judgment and the decree, respectively. Sale deed was got executed through the court as per Ext.P3. Delivery of the property was sought for by filing an application before Sub Court and Ext.P4 is the order for delivery. With police assistance, partial delivery was effected as per the report of the Amin dated 23.2.2017 produced as Ext.P5. Some shop rooms lying locked were left out to be delivered. Orders were obtained as per Ext.P6 from the Sub Court for breaking open the lock and effecting delivery. The delivery could not be effected and the Amin submitted Ext.P7 report. Thereafter orders were obtained to get police assistance. A tense situation was created by the judgment debtor and the report submitted by the Amin dated 12.4.2017 is Ext.P8. The petitioner sought assistance of the court as per Ext.P9 petition. The petition was dismissed by the court as per Ext.P10 order stating that the petitioner is apprehending threat to his life and property from third parties and therefore, the execution court cannot afford protection to the petitioner and left him to seek his remedy before appropriate forum. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing OP(C) No.1960/2017. This Court was pleased to order police assistance to the petitioner for enabling him to take delivery of the property as per Ext.P11 judgment dated 3.7.2017. Thus, the execution and delivery of the property was effected with police assistance. The delivery report submitted by the Amin is Ext.P12. Thereafter, the petitioner realised that party respondent Nos.1 and 2 and other anti social elements have illegally encroached upon the property, destructed the lock of the house and they are now illegally residing therein. When the petitioner went there, he was threatened with dire consequences. A complaint was filed by the petitioner before the third respondent as per Ext.P13. A crime was registered and copy of the FIR is produced as Ext.P14. During that period, Ext.P15 possession certificate was issued by the Village Officer, Ambalappuzha in favour of the petitioner. Mutation was effected and Ext.P16 is the tax receipt. No effective steps were however taken by the third respondent to evict the party respondents, who have encroached into the property. The petitioner, therefore, prays that a writ of mandamus may be issued directing respondent Nos.3 to 5 to render effective, adequate and continuous police protection to the life and the property of the petitioner and to remove respondent Nos.1 and 2 and other anti social elements from the property now belonging to the petitioner.

(2.) Learned Senior Government Pleader appeared for respondent Nos.3 to 6. Notice was served on the party respondents and the matter was referred for mediation. However, no effective mediation could be done, since the parties did not appear before the mediator.

(3.) The second respondent filed a counter affidavit. Contradicting the averments made in the Writ Petition, it is stated that her name has been erroneously stated as Saleena, whereas she is actually Ayishath Beevi. It is submitted that she is not a party to the proceedings in OS No.62/2013 on the file of Sub Court, Alappuzha. Therefore, the decree is not binding upon her. It is further stated that the property originally belonged to the second respondent's mother, Kulsam Beevi, who acquired it by virtue of sale deed No.1065/1971 of Ambalappuzha SRO and a house was constructed in that property by her father late Abdul Rahman. Due to some dispute between the second respondent's parents, her mother left the house, but the second respondent continued to reside there with her father. In order to expel her father from the property, her mother executed a settlement deed in 2002 in favour of the first respondent, who is none other than the elder sister of the second respondent. However, that settlement deed did not come into effect at any point of time. In order to prove possession of the property, the second respondent has produced Ext.2(a) Aadhaar Card. After demolishing the old house, she constructed a residential building with four shop rooms by availing loan from State Bank of India/State Bank of Travancore. She is conducting stationary business in one of the shop rooms and other shop rooms are let out on lease. Property tax was paid for the property by her father Abdul Rahman, as evidenced by Ext.R2(b). There is a water connection in the residential building in the name of her father as evidenced by Ext.R2(c). A telephone connection was also obtained in the name of her father, as evidenced by Ext.R2(d). Her father expired on 9.1.2017. The first respondent attempted to trespass and dispossess her from the property, consequent to which she filed OS No.744/2014 before the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha for a perpetual injunction against the first respondent. She obtained an interim injunction, as evidenced by Ext.R2(e). On receipt of notice from this Court, the petitioner came to know about the ex parte decree in OS No.62/2013. Thereupon, she filed OS No.927/2017 before the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha seeking perpetual injunction against the petitioner herein and his father and obtained an interim injunction in the said suit. A copy of that order is produced as Ext.R2(f). In view of these documents, the second respondent states that she cannot be dispossessed from the property.