D. Seethamma Panicker @ Seethamma Panickath i v. The District Superintendent of Police, Kollam & Others

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 21448 of 2008(C) -------------------------PETITIONER: ----------------- D. SEETHAMMA PANICKER @ SEETHAMMA PANICKATHI, KOTTINATTUSSERIL, S.V. MARKET POST, KOZHIKODE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADVS. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 3. SHANAVAS PANICKER, S/O.SASIDHARAN, CHANDRALAYAM (MANGALATH), S.V. MARKET POST, KOZHIKODE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 4. JAYARAJI PANICKER, D/O.SASIDHARAN, CHANDRALAYAM (MANGALATH), S.V. MARKET POST, KOZHIKODE, KARUNAGAPALLY. 5. RAMABHADRA PANICKER, - KOTTINATHUSSERIL PADEETTATHIL, S.V. MARKET.P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 6. RAJESH K. PANICKER, PUTHUMANA HOUSE, AYIRANIKKUDI.P.O, EDAPPAN, NOORANAD, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA. - 7. PRAMOD K. PANICKER, - PUTHUMANA HOUSE, AYIRANIKKUDI.P.O, EDAPPAN, NOORANAD, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA. (DELEATED) - (* RESPONDENT NO. 7 IS DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY VIDE ORDER NO. 10504/2008 DATED 11.8.2008) RESPONDENT NOS. 8 TO 12 ARE IMPLEADED 8. KRISHNAKUMARI PANICKER, PUTHUMANA HOUSE, PUTTOOR P.O., PADANILAM, NOORANADU, ALAPPUZHA. 9. RADHAMMA PANICKER, KOTTINATTUSSERIL HOUSE, S.V. MARKET P.O., KOZHIKODE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 10. SANTHAMMA PANICKER, CHANDRALAYAM,\ - S.V. MARKET P.O., KOZHIKODE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 11. BEENA RANI, D/O. RADHAMMA PANICKER, KOTTINATTUSSERIL HOUSE, S.V. MARKET P.O., KOZHIKODE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 12. N. SASIDHARAN, CHANDRALAYAM, - S.V. MARKET P.O., KOZHIKODE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. (RESPONDENT NOS. 8 TO 12 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER NO. 11087/2008 DATED 22.8.2008) BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL ADVS. SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR FOR R3 TO 6,8 TO12 SRI. K.SIJU FOR R3 TO 6 SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI FOR R3 TO 6 SRI.PRATHEESH.P FOR R3 TO 6 SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR FOR ADDL.R8 TO 12 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## W.P.(C) No. 21448/2008 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED PARTITION DEED NO. 325 DATED 3.2.1973. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1497 DATED 8.6.1998 EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO. 75/99 DATED 1.10.2004 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOLLAM. - EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT O.S.NO. 353/88 DATED 29.9.1988 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMETN IN W.P.(C) NO. 13379/04 DATED 18.5.2004 OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT. EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE D ATED 20.1.2006. - EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 403/08 DATED 30.4.2008. - EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.6.08 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** EXHIBIT R3(a) : THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THANDAPARU REGISTER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYANIVALIKULANGARA VILLAGE DATED 28.7.2008. EXHIBIT R3(b) : THE TRUE COPY OF THE TRUST DEED. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. vkm ## **K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ.** **-----------------------------------------------------** **W.P.(C)No.21448 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 3[rd] DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008** ## **J U D G M E N T** Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: (a) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate and sufficient police protection to the life of the petitioner and others who are being engaged by the petitioner in connection with the day to day administration of Mookumpuzha Thirumudi temple and also to the temple and its properties. (b) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to respondents 1 and 2 to restore law and order and thereby create a peaceful atmosphere in the premises of Mookumpuzha Thirumudi Temple.” The petitioner submits, she is the administrator of Mookkumpuzha Thirumudi Temple in Ayanivelikulangara Village of Karunagappally **W.P.(C)No.21448/08** ## **-2-** Taluk. The said temple is a Bhagavathy temple belonging to Kollinattusseril family. When the family properties were partitioned as per Exhibit P1, the temple was set apart in the share of party Nos.4 and 5 in that partition deed. The petitioner submits, party Nos.4 and 5 are her parents. They have six other children also. Even when her parents were alive, she submits, she was managing the temple. While so, her father died. After the death of her father, the mother inherited the temple. She executed Exhibit P2 sale deed in favour of the petitioner assigning the temple and its properties. While so, two of her sisters and the 5[th] respondent herein filed O.S.No.75/99 before the Principal Sub Court, Kollam seeking to set aside Exhibit P2 sale deed. The said suit was dismissed for default. The plaintiffs did not take any steps to challenge the said judgment. Exhibit P4 is a judgment in which she and her mother were plaintiffs. The said judgment of 1988 would show that she was in the management of the temple then. Exhibit P5 order for police protection passed by this Court would show that she was managing the temple in 2004. She also relies on Exhibit P6 hand bill published by her in 2006 which is yet another material to show that she is in command of the temple for the last several years. While so, the children of her sisters physically man handled her and therefore a crime has been registered against them under sections 323, 447, 427 and 34 IPC. The respondents **-3-** **W.P.(C)No.21448/08** 3 to 6 herein are causing obstruction to her managing the temple. Therefore, she filed Exhibit P8 representation for police protection. Since the police did not take any action, this Writ petition is filed. 2. The respondents 3 to 6 have filed a counter affidavit stating that the temple in question is being administered by a Trust. The petitioner's son is the Chairman of that Trust. The said respondent has produced Exhibit R3(a) extract of 'thandapper' register, which would show that the temple property does not stand in the name of the writ petitioner. Exhibit R3(b) is the trust deed as per which the temple is being administered now. They also submit that Exhibit P2 has got nothing to do with the temple. It relates to 78 cents of land lying adjacent to the temple. Schedule of Exhibit P2 would show that one of the boundaries of the first item of property conveyed as per Exhibit P2 is the temple. Exhibit P3 suit was filed to set aside the sale of the adjacent properties. Exhibit P4 relates to the obstruction of a pathway by a 3[rd] party. The same has nothing to do with the temple. Exhibit P5 order was passed by this Court on the strength of Exhibit P4 judgment. The same has also nothing to do with the temple or its administration. So, the party respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations of the party respondents and also reiterating her claim. She **W.P.(C)No.21448/08** **-4-** asserts, she was in management of the affairs of the temple for the last 35 years. 4. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that this is a civil dispute in the family, which has to be settled by the civil court. 5. Going by Exhibit P2, prima facie, we feel that the same does not relate to the temple as the temple is shown as a boundary to one of the items of properties conveyed as per Exhibit P2. Going by Exhibit P4, we find that it was a suit to remove the obstruction caused by the defendant Prabhakara Panicker in that suit against use of C schedule pathway by the petitioner and her mother. Exhibit P5 is rendered by this Court based on Exhibit P4. 6. The petitioner asserts she has been administering the temple for the last 35 years and she is entitled to administer the same on the strength of Exhibit P2. The party respondents seriously dispute and say that the temple was being administered for the last several years by a Trust headed by the petitioner's son. In answer, the petitioner would point out that the Trust came into being only recently and she is not a party to the creation of that Trust and the same will not bind her. 7. We notice that this is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the party respondents. The police cannot go into that dispute and **W.P.(C)No.21448/08** **-5-** render a finding on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and thereafter render protection based on that finding. In this jurisdiction, this Court cannot also go into the rival claims of the parties, enter a finding and thereafter direct the police to enforce that finding. We are concerned only with the failure of duty of the police. The petitioner, to redress her grievances, has to move the civil court. Police cannot be asked to interfere in this dispute when the right to administer the temple is under dispute. See the judgment of this Court in **Sadananda Bai v. Ravi (2008 (3) KLT 542).** In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and her right to move the civil court for appropriate reliefs. The civil court has ample powers to address the police to enforce its orders. This judgment will not affect the powers of the police to take action in accordance with law, if any cognizable offence is reported. It is also clarified that the civil court will not be bound by the prima facie findings made by us in this judgment. It can decide the suit based on the evidence tendered before it. ## **K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE.** ## **M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.** dsn