S.A. Santharathnamma vs The Sub Inspector of Police and Others

R. Basant, J.—The Petitioner, an 80 year old widow has come to this Court again complaining that in spite of Ext.P1 judgment passed by this Court in an earlier application for police protection filed by her, she is still vexed and harassed by Respondents 4 and 5- her daughter and son in law. She now prays that specific orders of police protection may be granted in her favour.

The Petitioner had executed a sale deed conveying 3.20 acres of property to her daughter on 15/2/2005. According to her, this was not a genuine document of sale executed by her. She revoked the sale deed and sought the assistance of the Civil Court to get the document declared null and void. The Civil Court considered the said dispute and granted relief in favour of the Petitioner. The document was declared null and void. It was held that notwithstanding the execution of the document, the Petitioner was in possession of the property in question.

Aggrieved by the finding of the Civil Court, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 preferred an appeal. In that appeal, they prayed for interim orders Though they wanted the judgment/decree to be stayed, the Appellate Court after detailed consideration refused to grant that relief. The Petitioner was temporarily restrained from committing any acts of waste in the property and from alienating the property to third parties pending disposal of the appeal. The Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were directed not to interfere with the peaceful life of the Petitioner in the building in the plaint schedule property. Though injunction was claimed against the Petitioner by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the Appellate Court did not grant the said relief.

When the earlier application for police protection came up for consideration, this Court accepted the undertaking of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that they shall not cause any harm to the life and person of the Petitioner. This Court did not issue any specific directions. Accepting the submissions, the matter was closed.

The Petitioner now complains that notwithstanding Ext.P1 judgment and the order of the Appellate Court, the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are continuing to vex and harass the Petitioner. They are causing threat to the life and person of the Petitioner and are also interfering with her peaceful possession of the property.

In these circumstances, the Petitioner reiterates her prayer for a direction to the police to afford protection to the property, life and person of the Petitioner. We have considered all the relevant inputs Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submits that the Petitioner was herself found to be guilty of culpable criminal conduct and the police have at least in two cases filed charge sheet against her In these circumstances, the alleged threat to her life and person is without any merit or substance. Now it is specifically asserted that the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 would have to enter the property and attend to the agricultural operations in the property.

Having considered all the relevant inputs, we are persuaded to agree that the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must be invoked in favour of the 80 year old Petitioner the mother and mother in law of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, to afford police protection to the life, person and property of the Petitioner. The extra ordinary features of this case, judged in the light of Ext.R5(c) do definitely persuade us to invoke such jurisdiction.

In the result:

A) This petition is allowed.

B) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to afford adequate police protection to the Petitioner against any trespass into the property scheduled in O.S No. 67 of 2007 of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Payyannur, (in A.S No. 35 of 2011 before the learned District Judge, Thalassery) and also to the life and person of the Petitioner.

C) In the circumstances of this case, we feel that the learned District Court, Thalassery, must be directed to ensure that A.S No. 35 of 2011 is disposed of, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of ''six'' months from the date of which a copy of this judgment is placed before that Court.

D) Hand over the copy of this order to the learned Counsel for Respondents 4 and 5 for production before the Court where A.S No. 35 of 2011 is pending.

E) Needless to say, the order of police protection hereby granted shall be subject to the result of A.S No. 35 of 2011.