High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-19Writ petition dismissed; police protection deni...

Lal Jose v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C)NO.32063OF2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2024-03-19
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed; police protection denied; parties directed to maintain law and order.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; police protection denied; parties directed to maintain law and order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Lal Jose

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN 695001
District Police Chief (Idukki District), Thodupuzha-Puliayanmala Road, IDUKKI COLONY PO, Cheruthony, IDUKKI District, PIN 685602
Station House Officer, Thodupuzha Janamaithri Police Station, Thodupuzha Town Road, IDUKKI District, PIN 685584
C. P. Joseph S/O PunnuSe, Chemmalakuzhiyil Veedu, Chugam, Thodupuzha Village, IDUKKI District, PIN 685608
Lajan S/O C P Joseph, Chemmalakuzhiyil Veedu, Chugam, Thodupuzha Village, IDUKKI District, PIN 685608
SEBI JOSEPH S/O JOSEPH, MAPPALAKAYIL HOUSE, MAILAKOMDU PO, IDUKKI District, PIN 685608

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• N.K. Shyju
• Deepak Raj
• Gireesh pankajakshan
• Ananya Mat
• Athira Padmendhu

Counsels for Respondents

• C R Sivakumar
• S Sooryagayathry
• Harir

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (WP(C) No.32063 of 2023) concerns Lal Jose, the petitioner, who claims that a property, bequeathed to him by Ext. P1 Will executed by his mother, was wrongfully entered and threatened by respondents 4–6 on 15.09.2023. The petitioner contends that his mother’s marriage to the 4th respondent was legally dissolved and, notwithstanding Ext. P1, the respondents trespassed, prompting him to seek police protection under Article 226 to safeguard his life and property and to enable repossession. Respondents 4–6 counter that theWill is under challenge in OS No.27 of 2023 before the Sub Court, Thodupuzha, with prayers for setting aside the Will, partition, boundary fixation, and injunction; they further assert that the 4th respondent is in possession and that a Mat. Appeal challenging a Family Court order is pending. The court notes from Ext. P2 that, in the petitioner’s absence, the respondents apparently possess the property, but the crucial question is whether the High Court should intervene to resolve civil rights disputes via police protection. Relying on George Mirante, P. R. Murlidharan, and Gladstone George Varghese, the court holds that police protection cannot adjudicate civil rights and should not be used to resolve such disputes. The writ petition is dismissed, with directions to maintain law and order and to pursue civil remedies.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Police cannot be adjudicators of civil disputes; civil rights over title and possession are to be adjudicated by civil courts.
Writ petitions under Article 226 seeking police protection cannot be used to adjudicate civil rights.
Abuse of process: approaching the High Court for police protection without establishing possession in an appropriate civil court is impermissible.
In matters involving civil rights or disputes over title and possession, police protection is not a matter of right; the High Court should not act as the arbitrator of civil disputes.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that Ext. P1 Will, executed by his mother, bequeathed the disputed property to him. He asserts that his mother’s marriage to the 4th respondent was legally dissolved, and despite Ext. P1, respondents 4–6 trespassed on 15.09.2023 and threatened workers. He filed Ext. P2 with the police (3rd respondent) seeking protection for life and property and to enable repossession, noting his absence from the country (residing in America). He contends that the matter involves civil rights over property and title, and that civil remedies are pending or available via OS No.27/2023 and related proceedings; while police protection is sought, the central issue is whether this Court should adjudicate civil rights by itself or defer to civil courts. He argues that protection cannot be granted as a matter of right, and the appropriate remedy is to approach Civil Court.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents deny trespass, asserting possession by the 4th respondent, and point to OS No.27 of 2023 challenging the Will, partition, and boundary, with a Mat appeal. They contend the Will’s validity and possession are contested in civil litigation, including family court orders, and a police-protection writ would amount to adjudicating civil rights rather than preserving peace. They request the Court to refrain from directing police to protect alleged possession and to reject the petition, urging that disputes be resolved through civil processes while maintaining law and order.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
George Mirante v. State of Kerala	1990 (2) KLT 89	Positive	Cited to support that police cannot adjudicate civil rights or act as adjudicators in disputes over title/possession; civil disputes must be resolved in Civil Courts.
P. R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar	2006 (4) SCC 501	Positive	Held that writ petitions seeking police protection cannot adjudicate civil rights and that possession must be established in an appropriate civil court; not suitable for treating protection as a writ remedy.
Gladstone George Varghese v. District Police Chief, Office of the DSP, Kollam	2023 (7) KHC 30	Positive	Observes that a writ petition under Art. 226 cannot grant police protection as a matter of right and that the petitioner should approach the concerned police with a complaint, while civil disputes must be left to Civil Courts; reinforces the principle that police are not adjudicators of civil disputes.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Lal Jose v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV TUESDAY,THE19[TH]DAYOFMARCH2024/29THPHALGUNA,1945 WP(C)NO.32063OF2023 ``` ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` LALC.JOSE AGED55YEARS ``` ``` S/OJOSEPH,CHEMALAKUZHIYILVEEDU,KOLLANIPO, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKIDISTRICT,NOWRESIDINGAT9AEDWARDST, CORTLANDTMANOR,NY1057,UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA. ``` ``` BYADVS. ``` ``` N.K.SHYJU DEEPAKRAJ GIREESHPANKAJAKSHAN ANANYAM. ATHIRAPADMENDHU ``` ``` RESPONDENTS: ``` - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.`** - **`2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF (IDUKKI DISTRICT), THODUPUZHA-PULIYANMALA ROAD, IDUKKI COLONY PO, CHERUTHONY, IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN - 685602.`** - **`3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THODUPUZHA JANAMAITHRI POLICE STATION, THODUPUZHA TOWN ROAD, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685584.`** ``` 4C.P.JOSEPH S/OPUNNUSE,CHEMMALAKUZHIYILVEEDU,CHUGAM,THODUPUZHA VILLAGE,IDUKKIDISTRICT,PIN-685608. ``` - **`5 LAJAN S/O C P JOSEPH, CHEMMALA KUZHIYIL VEEDU, CHUGAM, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685608.`** - **`6 SEBI JOSEPH S/O JOSEPH, MAPPALAKAYIL HOUSE, MAILAKOMDU PO, IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN - 685608.`** ``` BYADVS. ``` ``` CR.SIVAKUMAR ``` ``` S.SOORYAGAYATHRY(K/00000285/2023) HARIR.(K/000046/2023) ``` ``` WP(C)NO.32063OF2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 19.03.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C)NO.32063OF2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner herein is the son of the 4th respondent and brother of respondents 5 and 6. The petitioner states that an item of property owned by the petitioner was bequeathed upon him by his mother by Ext.P1 Will. He asserts that the marriage between the 4th respondent and his mother was legally dissolved. He contends that despite the execution of Ext.P1 by the mother, respondents 4 and 5 with the intent to take possession of the property have trespassed into the property on 15.9.2023 and threatened the workers. Though a complaint was lodged before the police, no action was taken. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking issuance of directions to respondents 2 and 3 to afford protection to the life and property of the petitioner. 2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 4 to 6 controverting the contentions. It is stated that challenging the Will, they have instituted O.S No.27 of 2023 before the Sub Court, Thodupuzha, wherein they have sought to set aside the Will, partition in the property, fixation of boundary and injunction. It is stated that the said suit is pending. It is further submitted, that the allegations that the respondents have trespassed onto the property are untrue. According to them, the 4th respondent is in possession of the property and he is entitled to reside there. ``` WP(C)NO.32063OF2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` It is further stated that challenging the order passed by the Family Court, a Mat. Appeal has been preferred and the same is pending consideration. 3. I have considered the submissions advanced. I find that Ext.P2 is the complaint lodged by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent. In Ext.P2, it is stated that the petitioner is residing in America, and on multiple occasions, the party respondents have attempted to trespass into the disputed property. However, in the course of submission, it is virtually admitted that in the absence of the petitioner, the party respondents are in possession of the property. The issue is whether in circumstances, this Court will be justified in directing the police to interfere in the disputes between the parties and to enable the petitioner to repossess the properties. 4. In **George Mirante[1]** , this Court had occasion to hold that in matters involving civil rights or disputes regarding title and possession over property, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an order for police protection. Police cannot be made the adjudicators of such disputes inter se between the parties, either regarding possession of the property, boundaries, easements, or alike matters. These are matters essentially within the domain of the Civil Courts. The parties should approach the appropriate Courts and seek redress. Police do not have the right to decide on such disputes, nor is it proper or competent for them to do so. They do not also have the machinery > 1 George Mirante v. State of Kerala [1990 (2) KLT 89] ``` WP(C)NO.32063OF2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` for the purpose. It is outside the limits of the duties that are cast on them, which is to prevent a breach of peace or commission of cognizable offenses and to preserve law and order. 5. In **P. R. Murlidharan[2]** , it was held by the Apex Court that a writ petition under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. It is one thing to approach the High Court for issuance of such a writ on a plea that a particular party has not obeyed a decree or an order of injunction passed in favor of the writ petitioner, was deliberately flouting that decree or order and in spite of the petitioner applying for it, or that the police authorities are not giving him the needed protection in terms of the decree or order passed by a court with jurisdiction. But, it is quite another thing to seek a writ of mandamus directing protection in respect of property, status, or right which remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an adjudication can only be done in a properly instituted civil suit. It would be an abuse of process for a writ petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to protect his claimed possession of a property without first establishing his possession in an appropriate civil court. The temptation to grant relief in cases of this nature should be resisted by the High Court. The wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would > 2 P. R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar [2006 (4) SCC 501] ``` WP(C)NO.32063OF2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` ## remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situations. ## 6. In **Gladstone George Varghese[3] ,** a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to observe as under: 19. In a writ petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is not entitled to an order for police protection as a matter of right. Similarly, in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot grant an order for police protection as a matter of course. In order to seek police protection under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner has to first approach the concerned Station House Officer with a proper complaint against those who are causing a threat to his life/property and/or a 'law and order' issue in the locality. Since a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a failure on the part of that officer concerned to discharge the statutory obligation, in the complaint filed before the concerned Station House Officer, which is the foundation upon which a writ petition seeking police protection has been built, the writ petitioner has to disclose his legal right to compel performance of a statutory duty cast upon that officer. 7. Having considered the principles of law laid down above, I am of the view that it would not be proper for this Court to issue directions to the police to grant protection to the petitioner in respect of a matter which is the subject matter before the civil court. It is for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court and establish his right. If the petitioner has been dispossessed, it is for him to approach the Civil Court and seek appropriate remedies. This Court will not be justified in directing the police to be the adjudicator of the civil disputes between the parties. In that view of the 3 Gladstone George Varghese v. District Police Chief, Office of the DSP, Kollam [2023 (7) KHC 30] ``` WP(C)NO.32063OF2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` matter, I refuse the request of the petitioner for police protection. However, I direct the parties to maintain law and order. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** ``` Sru ``` ``` WP(C)NO.32063OF2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32063/2023`** |**`PETITIONERS EXHIBITS`**|||| |---|---|---|---| |**`Exhibit P1`**|**`A`** **`TRUE`** **`COPY`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`WILL`** **`NO:`** **`92/III/2023`** **`OF`**||| ||**`THODUPUZHA SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE DATED 20/3/2023`**||| ||**`EXECUTED BY THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER.`**||| |**`Exhibit P2`**|**`A`** **`TRUE`** **`COPY`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`COMPLAINT`** **`DATED 23.09.2023`**||| ||**`SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`**||| |**`Exhibit P3`**|**`A`** **`TRUE`** **`COPY`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`RECEIPT`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`COMPLAINT`**||| ||**`FROM`** **`THE`** **`THODUPUZHA`** **`POLICE`** **`STATION,`**||**`DATED`**| ||**`23.09.2023.`**||| |**`Exhibit P4`**|**`A`** **`TRUE`** **`COPY`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`POLICE`** **`COMPLAINT`**||**`DATED`**| ||**`26/1/2024`** **`PRESENTED`** **`BEFORE`** **`THE`** **`STATION`**||**`HOUSE`**| ||**`OFFICER, THODUPUZHA`**||| |**`RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS`**|||| |**`Exhibit R4 (A)`**|**`A`** **`True`** **`copy`** **`of`** **`the`** **`unnumbered`** **`caveat petition`**||| ||**`dated 23/08/2023 filed by Petitioner.`**||| |**`Exhibit R4 (B)`**|**`A`** **`true`** **`copy`** **`of`** **`the`** **`proceedings`** **`sheet`**|**`in`** **`Mat`**|| ||**`Appeal No 563/2025.`**||| |**`Exhibit R4 (C)`**|**`A`** **`true`** **`copy`** **`of`** **`the`** **`original`** **`suit`** **`No`**||**`27/23`**| ||**`before the Hon'ble Sub Court, Thodupuzha.`**||| |**`Exhibit R4(D)`**|**`A true copy of the judgement in WPC 27095/2011`**||| ||**`dated 04/11/2011.`**||| |**`Exhibit R4 (E)`**|**`A true copy of the judgment in WP(C) 6252/2020`**||| ||**`dated 15/12/2022.`**||| |**`Exhibit R4(G)`**|**`A`** **`true`** **`copy`** **`of the complaint filed before the`**||| ||**`maintenance`** **`Tribunal`** **`with`** **`acknowledgment`**||**`dated`**| ||**`25/09/2020.`**||| |**`Exhibit R4 (H)`**|**`A`** **`true`** **`copy`** **`of`** **`the`** **`Sworn`** **`Affidavit`**||**`dated`**| ||**`15/11/2015.`**||| |**`Exhibit R4 (F)`**|**`A`** **`true`** **`copy`** **`of`** **`the`** **`complaint`** **`filed`**|**`by`** **`the`**|| ||**`Petitioner dated 22/07/2023.`**|||