S ASHOKAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed seeking for a direction to the third respondent police, on the basis of the representation dated 18.2.2015 given to the first respondent, to give protection to the petitioners, their power agent, agreement holder, their workman, their servants, their gardener cum watchman in respect of the property at No.145, subsequent No.115, present No.134, bearing survey No.84/1A, extending 1.50 acres in Neelankarai Village, Saidapet Taluk, belonging to the petitioners,

(2.) It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr.I.Subramanian, that the petitioners are the owners of the property at No.134, having an extent of 1.50 acres of land in Survey No.84/1 of Neelankarai Village, Saidapet Taluk, and their title and possession was confirmed by this Court in Second Appeal No.1458 of 2007 dated 01.10.2012 and by order dated 23.11.2012 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.33689-33690/2012, the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the common judgment of this Court dated 01.10.2012 made in S.A.No.1458 of 2007 and CRP NPD No.3952 of 2008 and the appellants in Second Appeal No.1458 of 2007 are attempting to dispossess the petitioners by force and therefore, the present petition is filed to protect their possession. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the Second Appeal specific finding was given to the effect that the petitioners were the owners of the said property and they had been in continuous possession of the property and the appellants had neither any title nor possession of the property and therefore, the suit filed by the appellants was rightly dismissed by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. He therefore submitted that the petitioners being lawful owners of the property are entitled to enjoy the property and if their possession is disturbed by the persons whose suit was dismissed, the petitioners are entitled to get the order of protection. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to claim protection from the respondents police - 1 to 3 and they have also given a complaint dated 18.2.2015 to the first respondent police stating in detail the judgments of the Courts and requesting them to give protection and the Respondents 1 to 3 were not taking further action, and hence, the petition has been filed. He, therefore, submitted that the petition may be allowed and the respondents be directed to give police protection to the petitioners.

(3.) Initially, Respondents 4 to 7 were not impleaded who are Appellants 2 to 5 in S.A.No.1458 of 2007. Nevertheless, when the matter was taken up on 12.3.2015, Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel, sought permission of this Court to intervene on behalf of the Appellants 2 to 5 in S.A.No.1458 of 2007 and submitted elaborate arguments regarding the maintainability of the petition filed by the petitioners and also argued that the petitioners were not in possession of the property and though the suit filed by Respondents 4 to 7, who were later impleaded herein, was dismissed, there was no decree in favour of the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners cannot seek police protection and also submitted that without impleading the Respondents 4 to 7, the petitioners are not entitled to file a petition seeking for police protection against them. The learned Senior Counsel argued for more than an hour and thereafter, the case was reserved for judgment. Later Respondents 4 to 7 filed M.P.No.1 of 2015 to implead themselves as parties to the petition and that was allowed and on the same day, M.P.No.2 of 2015 filed by Respondent 4 to 7 questioning the maintainability of the present petition filed by the petitioners was taken up and the learned Senior Counsel once again elaborately argued the matter on merits and also with reference to the maintainability of the petition.