V.V. Surendran vs Thampy and Others

A.K. Basheer, J.—Petitioner who is stated to have purchased from Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 a small parcel of land having an extent of 52.55 ares situated in R.S. 111/1 and 111/2 of Morakkala kara in Kunnathunad Village of Ernakulam district way back in 1993 seems to have unwittingly landed up in a series of litigations.

It is on record that in 1997, Respondents 1 and 2, the assignors of the Petitioner, instituted a suit before the Subordinate Judge''s Court, North Paravur in O.S. 322/97 praying for a decree for cancellation of the assignment deed and for a perpetual injunction. In the said suit, Petitioner had filed a counter claim praying for a decree for recovery of possession. The suit filed by the Respondents 1 and 2 was dismissed while the counter claim was allowed.

It is not in dispute that on the strength of the decree passed in the counter claim, Petitioner had got possession of the property through court in E.P. No. 445/03. However, in 2004, Respondents made an attempt to trespass into the property. It was resisted by the Petitioner. He instituted O.S. 248/04 against Respondents 1 and 2 praying for a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction. The suit was decreed as prayed for, by judgment dated August 19, 2004. When the above decree was violated, Petitioner had filed E.P.263/07. In that proceedings Ext.P8 order was passed by the Execution Court on June 1, 2010 affording police protection to the Petitioner to construct a compound wall in the property.

The grievance of the Petitioner is that Respondents 1 and 2 trespassed into the property and demolished a portion of the compound wall even in spite of the above order passed by the Execution Court. It was at that stage that the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ or direction to Respondents 4 to 6 to afford adequate police protection to possess and enjoy his property in a peaceful manner and also to put up a compound wall and a gate.

We have heard Sri. Krishnan Unni, learned senior Counsel who appears for the Petitioner and Sri. Mathew Paul, who appears for the party Respondents.

The case of the party Respondents is that Petitioner has managed to obtain assignment of the property by playing fraud and that no title had been conveyed to the Petitioner on the strength of the so called assignment deed. It is further contended by him that Respondents 1 and 2 had never indulged in any illegal activity as alleged by the Petitioner. It is asserted by the learned Counsel that Respondents 1 and 2 had never demolished the compound wall of the Petitioner''s property.

He further points out that Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a petition to restore the suit O.S. 322/97 which was dismissed in January 2001. Similarly, a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree passed against them in OS. 248/04 has also been filed before the court concerned.

Anyhow, we do not propose to deal with the above aspect for the obvious reason that it is not germane to the issue pending before us now. Learned Government Pleader submits that adequate protection has been afforded by the police to the Petitioner so far as directed by this Court to complete the construction of the compound wall. She further states that necessary protection will be afforded, if and when any such request is made by the Petitioner in this regard. In that view of the matter, we do not deem it necessary to keep this writ petition pending on the file of this Court any further.

The writ petition is closed.