SRINIVASA BADRI NARAYANAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to direct the first and second respondents to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner to cultivate his land measuring about 1.89 acres compromised in S.No.91/1, Keelavayalur, Somarasampettai, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District by considering his representation dated 24.05.2018.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's grandfather is the owner of the property in S.No.91/1, Keelavayalur, Somarasampettai, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District measuring about 1.89 acres. The petitioner and his family members are in possession of the said property, from the very purchase of the property by his grandfather. He would submit that the third and fourth respondents, who are in no way connected to the property, trespassed into the property and grabbed it. Hence, the petitioner filed a suit as a legal heir of the said Rangasamy Iyangar in O.S.No.638 of 2010 before the learned District Munsif, Trichy against the third and fourth respondents seeking the relief of declaration and recovery of possession. The learned Additional District Munsif by judgment and decree, dated 31.07.2012 granted the relief prayed for in the suit and aggrieved over the judgment, the third and fourth respondents filed an appeal in A.S.No.217 of 2012 before First Additional Sub-Court, Trichy. After contest, the appeal came to be dismissed as devoid of merits on 17.04.2017. Thereafter the petitioner filed a execution petition in E.P.No.21 of 2016 before the trial Court and the said petition was allowed. When the Court Amin went to take over the possession of the property, the respondents 3 and 4 prevented the Court Amin from doing so. Thereby, E.A.410 of 2017 in the Execution Petition has been filed seeking police protection and the same was allowed on 15.11.2017. On 17.11.2017, the Execution Court sent a letter directing the first respondent to provide sufficient police protection. With the aid of the first and second respondents, the senior bailiff took the possession of the property from the petitioner in the presence of VAO, Somersampettai and other officials.

(3.) He would submit that thereafter, the third and fourth respondents had filed a Second Appeal before this Court with a petition to condone the delay of 37 days in C.M.P.(MD)No.10234 of 2017 in S.A.SR(MD)No.34994 of 2017 before this Court and the the petitioner filed his counter objecting the averments made by the third and fourth respondents. During the course of hearing in the petition to condone the delay, the third and fourth respondents filed their undertaking affidavit before this Court stating that already the petitioner had taken the possession of the property from them and thereby, they will not disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Recording the said undertaking the condone delay petition was allowed.