Shaffique,J
Petitioner claims ownership and possession in respect of an extent of 60 cents of property in Sy.No.383/107, 126 of Nilamel village. According to him, when his mother and other brothers tried to destroy the boundaries of the property, he filed O.S.No.435/93 before the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara in which a decree had been passed which had become final after disposal of the second appeal. According to the petitioner, despite the decree passed, party respondents 5 to 7 and some other people had threatened him and had forcibly prevented him from entering the property. It is further stated that they have demolished a portion of the existing building and constructed certain foundation work in the property. Though the petitioner had complained to the police, no action has been taken in the matter.
2. Counter affidavit is filed by the 5th respondent inter alia stating that the party respondents have no intention to trespass into the property situated in Sy.No.383/107, 126 of Nilamel Village. It is further stated that the 2nd appeal is pending before this Court which is yet to come up. The suit is filed by the petitioner for declaration of title in respect of three items of property which consist of 25 cents, 20 cents and another 15 cents. It is contended that the documents relied upon by the petitioner is vitiated by fraud and other vitiating circumstances. It is further stated that all the building materials for construction of the residential building was unloaded in his property which is to the south of Plaint A schedule item No.1 in O.S.No.435/1993 and the building is also constructed in his property.
3. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner has also executed an assignment deed in respect of certain item of property in the year 2012 which is not mentioned in the writ petition.
4. Having regard to the factual situation involved in the writ petition, it is clear that the parties are involved in a civil dispute. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd appeal which is referred to by the party respondents has been dismissed and therefore the decree had become final. The decretal portion of O.S.No.435/93 reads as under:
“In the result, suit is decreed in part. The cancellation deed No.1727/93 dated 11/5/1993 executed by the first defendant is hereby set aside and the plaintiff's title and possession over the plaint schedule properties are declared. The defendants and the persons under them are hereby permanently restrained from taking the yield from the plaint schedule properties or from destroying its boundaries or from doing any acts affecting the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. No order as to costs.”
5. If, despite the decree passed in the said suit, party respondents are interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, it is always open for the petitioner to execute the said decree. This Court cannot direct the police to interfere with the civil dispute between the parties especially when the party respondents have a case that they have not trespassed into the property belonging to the petitioner. These are all matters to be adjudicated by the civil court in appropriate proceedings.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has initiated execution proceedings in the said suit. If there is any violation of the order of injunction even civil court can direct appropriate police protection, if it is necessary in the interest of justice. In the above circumstances, we do not think that any direction, as sought for, is required to be passed and accordingly reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the civil court for appropriate reliefs, this writ petition is closed.
(sd/-) (ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) jsr (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)