GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PALAKKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are husband, wife and their daughter. It is an admitted fact that they are engaged in several civil disputes with the party respondents, who are none other than the siblings of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner had sued, the party respondents and other siblings seek partition of their paternal property. The claim was contested by the defendants therein, which included the 1st petitioner's mother. The defense was that of a bequest allegedly made by the father in favour of his wife and consequent to the testator's demise, the mother settled the property in favour of all her children, except the 1st petitioner. The mother is also no more and the trial court dismissed the suit, O.S.No.120/2005. Countersuit filed by the mother against the 1st petitioner as O.S.No.98/2005 earlier was decreed. The 1st petitioner challenged both the decrees before the Sub Court, Ottappalam. The appeal met the same fate and the decrees were confirmed. Raising substantial questions of law, the 1st petitioner challenged the matter before this Court as R.S.A.Nos.822 & 823 of 2015. Those appeals are pending. It is stated that the petitioners are residing in the house, which the 1st petitioner claims to have constructed. The 3rd petitioner is their only daughter and they fear for her life at the instigation of the party respondents. They have hired goons to carry out threats and the 3rd petitioner is not even able to pursue her studies because of the scare. The police authorities were approached. But there is total indolence on their part. Hence the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court seeking adequate and meaningful protection to them from respondents 1 to 3. The petitioners have produced documents to show that a crime has been registered on the complaint filed by the 1st petitioner and the medical records produced would indicate that petitioners 1 and 2 had sustained injury. That apart, news paper report regarding the assault of the 1st petitioner is also produced.

(2.) Respondents 4 to 6 have filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioners. Ext.R4(b) is an order of injunction obtained by the 4th respondent from the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad restraining the 1st petitioner and another from entering the property and taking usufructs from the property. Copy of the application for injunction on which the said order was obtained is produced as Ext.R4(a) .

(3.) After having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the party respondents as well as the Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, we find that the threat to life pleaded by the petitioners is misconceived. The petitioners have been at loggerheads with the party respondents for quite sometime. Civil litigations were filed and all these cases were decreed and dismissed against the 1st petitioner. The petitioners have no existing right over the property. It is true that the R.S.As. are pending before this Court. But the concurrent finding of the trial court and the first appellate court is against the petitioners. There is a lot of bad blood between the siblings. We have no intention to deploy the police authorities to resolve a civil dispute between the siblings. The dispute needs to be resolved by a civil court and it would be inappropriate to engage the police authorities in such matters. We are therefore not inclined to issue any positive direction to respondents 1 to The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.