(1.) Petitioners are before this Court alleging harassment at the hands of respondents 5 and 6. The 5 th respondent is the second petitioner's brother and the 6 th respondent is his nephew. The allegation is that due to some family property issues between the petitioners and the party respondents, the party respondents trespassed into the house of the petitioners and manhandled the first petitioner; the wife of the second petitioner. It is also pointed out that a crime has been registered by the jurisdictional Police at Ext.P1. The petitioner submits that even later, there was an incident of some hooligans trespassing into the house of the petitioner and assaulting the petitioners while also threatening them from proceeding against respondents 5 and 6. It is on these bare facts that the writ petition has been filed alleging harassment by the party respondents and police protection to stop the harassment.
(2.) Respondents 5 and 6 appeared and filed a detailed It has been pointed out that the respondent has a property sandwiched between two properties of the second petitioner. The brothers were also running a business jointly and due to some dispute on settlement of accounts, they fell out. respondent has been carrying on the business by himself in his property which was objected to and interfered with constantly by the second petitioner. hence filed a suit as early as in 2005. The suit was for declaration of title and injunction from the interference of the petitioner's herein, who are the defendants therein. There was also a prayer for fixation of boundaries, which was permitted and the suit itself decreed as prayed for. Judgement is produced at Ext.R5(a). An appeal had ended in rejection as seen from Ext. R5(b). A second appeal is also said to be pending, which appeal memorandum is also produced along with the counter affidavit.
(3.) The fifth respondent in fact submits that on 22.6.2019, it was the 5th respondent who was assaulted and he had lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional Police, which is revealed from Ext.R5(e). No action has been taken by the Police on that complaint. We also see from the contemporaneous document Ext.R5(d), the prescription issued to the 5th respondent from the hospital where he received medical care, that the alleged cause was described as assault resulting in nasal bleeding. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent also points out that it is only as a counterblast to the above complaint made by the 5 th respondent that Ext.P1 was lodged. We also see from Ext.P1 that the allegation of trespass and assault on 22.6.2016, was registered as a complaint only on 26.6.2016 which makes the allegations very suspect.