AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. Joseph, J.—Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following relief:
to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to give adequate and necessary police protection to the life and property of the petitioners and their family.
Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:
Petitioners purchased under Exts.P1 to P4 various extent of properties. The 6th respondent purchased the aforesaid properties from one Hari and he obtained possession. The 3rd respondent filed a suit for declaration of title possession and injunction. The suit was dismissed vide Ext.P5 judgment. Subsequently, the 6th respondent filed an appeal as R.F.A.20/2010. This Court restrained the 3rd respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the 6th respondent. Subsequently this Court passed Ext.P6(b) order of status quo. It is stated that petitioners are relatives and are innocent purchasers who are agriculturists mainly depending the yields from the rubber trees. Respondents 3 to 5 threatened the petitioners and their workers from taking yields. Petitioners filed separate complaints Ext.P7(a) to P7 (d). Complaining of in action petitioners are before us.
We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri. Sreekanth S. Nair and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would point out that petitioners are innocent purchasers and they are entitled to protection as claimed.
We must notice certain facts in this case. The case of petitioners is built on Exts.P1 to P3 and Ext.P4 documents of sale executed in the year 2009 and 2010 respectively. The 3rd respondent has filed a civil suit O.S.31/2006 against the 6th respondent and others. The suit culminated in Ext.P5 judgment. In the said judgment the trial Court has dismissed the suit. It would appear however that in paragraph 43 of the judgment the Court has stated as follows: "In the above circumstances, it is found that the plaintiff has parted with his title to the Plaint Schedule Properties, however, he retains possession over the same and he is not entitled to the specific performance sought for and injunction sought for." Learned Counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that it is feeling aggrieved by the said portion apparently that the 6th respondent has preferred RFA 820/2010. Initially this Court while admitting the matter granted interim injunction against the 3rd respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. We notice however that subsequently by Ext.P6(b) the following order is passed.
Pending further consideration we however direct that the status quo as on today will be maintained by both the parties. However, it is submitted that the injunction as sought for is against the plaintiff alone, who has been served with notice, post the I.A along with RFA No. 51/2010 on 10.2.2010.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners would further point out that the 3rd respondent has also preferred RFA 51/2010 as is evident from Ext.P6(b) itself. Therefore, this is a case where the petitioners rely upon their title traceable ultimately to the 6th respondent and title is pending consideration in two civil appeals which are pending before this Court. Originally this Court has granted an injunction order. We notice that the order of injunction has been modified as order of status quo. In such a state of affairs we can hardly blame the police who hesitated to interfere in the matter. Ext.P5 judgment and decree has not become final and as already noticed there is a finding in the judgment that the 3rd respondent is in possession of the property which is appealed against by the 6th respondent and orders of status quo has been passed. In such a state of facts, we think that this is hardly a case which is fit to be entertained in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 for police protection. We see no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. This is without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to seek relief in any other competent forum.