Ramachandra Menon,J
Petitioner, who is a septuagenarian, is before this Court seeking for police protection against the 3rd respondent, her son, particularly, in relation to the rights and liberties as to the enjoyment of the property concerned.
2. It is stated that, there was some dispute with regard to the rights and interest over the property which was actually owned by the co-owners including the petitioner and her children. Pursuant to a civil suit filed by the petitioner for partition, the same was decreed and the petitioner has approached the civil court by filing Ext.P2 petition for execution of the decree as E.P.No.41/2013 in O.S.No.71/2008. It is stated that the same is pending.
3. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to live in the building concerned and is having right to take income/usufructs from the plaint schedule property, which is, however, sought to be prevented by the 3rd respondent by taking the law into his hands. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent is forcibly trying to evict the petitioner, without any regard to the rule of law, particularly when the field is covered by decree passed by the civil court. By virtue of avocation of 3rd respondent as a money lender and the influence he is having over the police, he is doing all the mischief. This made the petitioner to file Ext.P3 complaint before the Police, which, however, was kept in a cold storage, thus driving the petitioner to approach this Court for immediate interference.
4. The learned State Attorney submits on instructions that, Ext.P3 complaint, preferred by the petitioner before the police, only requests for summoning the 3rd respondent and to warn him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has also sought for protection to her life and property. The learned State Attorney submits that, pursuant to the said complaint, the 3rd respondent was summoned to the police station and factual position was ascertained.
5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the rights and liberties of the petitioner over the property in so far as it is covered by the decree passed by the civil court (which is sought to be executed as per Ext.P2) could be pursued before the concerned court in accordance with law. Similarly, if there is any threat of eviction or encroachment from the part of the 3rd respondent, it is open for the petitioner to file a civil suit seeking for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the 3rd respondent or persons acting under him. It also goes without saying that, if any atrocious act is done by the 3rd respondent leading to any offence punishable under any provisions of law, it could be put to the notice of the police, upon which necessary steps shall be taken by the police to deal with the situation.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
sj26/06