Vilasachandran vs The District Polce Chief, Kollam Rural, Kottarakkara P.O, Kollam - 691506 and Others

K.M. Joseph, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective police protection for the life and property of the petitioner from the threat of respondents 4 to 8 and their henchmen, associates or anybody.

ii. Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get police protection for their life and property from the threat of the respondents 4 to 8 and their henchmen, associates or anybody.

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

Petitioner is a senior citizen who was working in Malabar Cements, Palakkad. His wife died due to cancer and there are no children. Petitioner is the absolute owner of the property by succession. The property is mutated. Ext.P1 is the tax receipt. Fourth respondent is the son of the eldest brother of the petitioner''s wife, fifth respondent is the mother of the fourth respondent, sixth respondent is the brother of the petitioner''s wife and respondents 7 and 8 are the children of the sixth respondent. After the death of the petitioner''s wife, respondents 4 to 8 and their henchmen are threatening the petitioner, alleging that money is due from the petitioner''s wife and forcibly obtained signature of the petitioner to execute certain documents in respect of twentyfive cents of property. The fourth respondent misled the petitioner and purchased a lorry in the name of the petitioner and misused it. There are other allegations. It is also stated that respondents 4 to 8 have no right over the petitioner''s property and the building. There is threat to the life of the petitioner from respondents 4 to 8 and their henchmen. Petitioner filed complaint and is before us.

Counter Affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 4 to 8. Their case, inter alia, is as follows:

Fourth respondent is also in joint possession and enjoyment of the landed property mentioned in paragraph (1) of the Writ Petition. Since the petitioner and his wife had no children, the fourth respondent was looking after the entire affairs. The respondents had sent money for the petitioner and his wife. They also obtained money with respect to the 25 cents of property. The party respondents never threatened the petitioner for any purpose. The petitioner under the guise of police protection, is trying to deny the valuable right of the party respondents over the property mentioned in paragraph (2) of the Writ Petition. When the petitioner''s wife was suffering from cancer, he did not turn up for a single day to his wife and he did not spend even a single pie for the treatment of his wife. The entire expenses were met by the fourth respondent and other respondents.

A Reply Affidavit is filed by the petitioner, wherein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows:

Respondents 4 to 8 have no manner of right in respect of the property comprised in Survey Nos.165/9-1, 165/33 in Block No.33 of Pooyappally Village. Twentyfive cents of property was obtained by the petitioner by virtue of succession after the demise of his wife and the remaining five cents of property in Sy.No.165/33 of Pooyappally Village was purchased by the petitioner by virtue of Ext.P3 Sale Deed. A two storeyed building was constructed by availing loan and the petitioner is still re- paying the balance loan amount to the Bank. Petitioner says that he has spent Rs. .3,00,000/= for the treatment of his wife at Lake Shore Hospital, Ernakulam. Ext.P4 is a gazette notification to indicate that the petitioner is the sole legal heir of his wife. He reiterates the allegation of threat.

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents and also the learned Government Pleader. We are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to an order of police protection for his life. No doubt, we would take note of the stand of the party respondents that they have not threatened the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to afford effective police protection to the life of the petitioner as against respondents 4 to 8 and their henchmen. We make it clear that we are not pronouncing on the property rights and if the matter comes up before any court, the said court will decide it in accordance with law, untrammeled by any observation contained in this Judgment.