SENBAGASUNDARI Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VELLORE DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above writ petition are as follows:- THE petitioner claims to be the owner of the property at Survey No.33/1, 50/1B & 55/1C1 measuring 0.70 cents, 1.55 cents, 1 acre respectively, in Pinnavaram Village, Arakonam Taluk, Vellore District. Pursuant to an agreement of sale entered into between the petitioner and one Kothandapillai in respect of the said property, a suit for specific performance came to be filed by Kothandapillai, but the suit was dismissed and the first appeal was allowed, but ultimately the second appeal in S.A.No.1208 of 2006 filed by the petitioner was allowed by this Court by judgment dated 07.12.2006. By the said judgment, the relief of specific performance was refused. According to the petitioner, after obtaining the decree in her favour she entered into the property to carry on the agricultural operations, but the unsuccessful plaintiff threatened her with dire consequences and hence the petitioner approached the second respondent on 23.12.2006 and lodged a complaint and sought for police protection, but according to the petitioner, the police protection was not provided. In such circumstances, the above writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that after the filing of the suit, whatever relationship that might have been enjoyed between the plaintiff in the suit and the petitioner herein got disrupted automatically and under such circumstances, it is the duty of the State Police to offer protection enabling the petitioner to enjoy the property effectively.

(3.) IN this writ petition it is not proper for this Court to decide the question as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant is snapped by entering into of sale agreement and what is the nature and character of the possession of Kothandapillai in respect of the property in question. It is suffice to find out whether prima facie the petitioner is in physical possession of the property in question or not. IN the judgment dated 07.12.2006 rendered in S.A.No.1208 of 2006 in paragraph 10 it is observed that admittedly, the plaintiff was in possession of the property and cultivating the same by paying waram. IN paragraph 13 it is observed as follows:-