GEORGE MIRANTE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has purchased three cents of land in Sy.No. 1045/3 of Ernakulam Village from one Sunny Nicholas Louis by the document Ext. P1 dated 30-5-1989. Respondents 3 to 5 are occupying the neighbouring 3 cents of land by virtue of kudikidappu right obtained by the 4th respondent's father from Sunny Nicholas Louis. Respondents 3 to 5 were allegedly attempting to trespass into the property now belonging to the petitioner, when the original owner Sunny Nicholas Louis filed suit O.S. No.668 of 1989 in the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam and obtained an ex parte order of temporary injunction restraining respondents 3 to 5 from trespassing into the property. A copy of the order of injunction is Ext. P2. Despite the injunction, respondents 3 to 5 continued their alleged threat to forcibly occupy the property, whereupon the petitioner, who had purchased the property meanwhile, approached the police for necessary help to ward off the threat, as also the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Cochin to take appropriate proceedings against respondents 3 to 5 . The Revenue Divisional Officer, however, declined jurisdiction by his proceedings Ext.R4 on the ground that the dispute between the parties was pending adjudication in the civil court. In the absence of any response from the police, petitioner has moved this original petition for direction to the second respondent, Sub Inspector of Police to afford adequate police protection to enter and enjoy the property purchased by him as per Ext. P1 sale deed.

(2.) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 3 to 5 points out that the 4th respondent's father Paramu was a kudikidappukaran, who had been granted kudikidappu rights over 3 cents of land as per the order of the Land Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A.No.594 of 1976. Paramu had been in possession of the adjoining four cents as well. There is no boundary between the three cents purchased by him as kudikidappukaran and the neighbouring four cents, the latter being enclosed on the east and south by compound wall and on the north by a fence. He had been in possession and enjoyment of the same, planting coconut and mango trees, and taking the income therefrom for over twelve years past, and therefore, irrespective of whether he had title originally or not, he had perfected title to the same by prescription. Neither the petitioner nor his vendor Sunny Nicholas Louis had any possession of this four cents of land which formed the subject matter of Ext. P1 sale deed, though for a lesser extent. After Paramu's death, his daughter the 4th respondent inherited the property, and she is in enjoyment along with her husband, the third respondent, and another, the 5th respondent. Respondents 3 to 5 have filed their written statement in the suit, and objections to the petition for injunction, which is posted for hearing. On the petitioner's approach to the Revenue Divisional Officer, respondents 3 to 5 explained the position to the latter, who thereupon declined to interfere in the matter by his proceedings Ext.R4.

(3.) The question for consideration is whether in these circumstances, there is any duty cast on the police to act in aid of the petitioner, as requested by him, and to afford protection to "enter and enjoy" the disputed property.