WP CRL./2504/2026 of K.Devaraj Vs The State Represented By, The Inspector of Police on 13 October 2026

ORDER

The petitioner is the son of one Krishnan. The third respondent is Krishnan’s sister-in-law i.e. to say, Seetharaman, the husband of the third respondent is the brother of Krishnan. The two brothers, Krishnan and Seetharaman had another sibling name, Narayanan. Between the brothers, a suit for partition came to be filed in O.S.No.1265 of 1962. The suit came to be decreed. An application for final decree was filed and it was allowed. The parties filed an Execution Petition and took delivery of the portions which they were allotted in the said final decree.

2. The third respondent herein filed an another suit in O.S.No.60 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Court at Coimbatore, seeking the relief of declaration of title and for recovery of possession. It was her specific case that the portion allotted to her husband Seetharaman, which she was in possession, had been occupied by the defendants in that suit unauthorisedly. The suit came to be decreed on 05.04.2006. The appeal, preferred therefrom in A.S.No.113 of 2006 came to be dismissed on 14.07.2008. A Second Appeal to this Court in S.A.No.648 of 2009 was also dismissed by this Court on 30.07.2009.

3. The petitioner, claiming that the third respondent is interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, filed a suit in O.S.No.884 of 2011. In the said suit, the third and fourth respondents (4th respondent claimed through the third respondent) were impleaded as parties. After contest, the suit came to be decreed on 31.01.2020. A regular appeal was preferred from the decree in A.S.No.32 of 2020 and that was allowed on 25.07.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred a Second Appeal to this Court in S.A.No.788 of 2023. After hearing both sides, the Second Appeal was allowed on 23.01.2024. Aggrieved by the decree of permanent injunction granted by this Court, a Special Leave Petition was preferred to the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) Diary No.46796 of 2025. Finding that the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition has not been explained, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition by order dated 19.09.2025. In fine, the decree for permanent injunction granted by this Court in S.A.No.788 of 2023 has attained finality.

4. The plaintiff in O.S.No.884 of 2011 has preferred this Writ Petition seeking for police protection with respect to the property for which he has secured for the relief of permanent injunction. According to him, the second respondent attempted to trespass into the property and he has been egged along by the respondents 3 and 4 in his efforts. He made a representation to the Police and as it has not been considered, he is before this Court.

5. When the writ petition came up for admission, I call upon Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar to take notice for the Police and called upon him to instruct the first respondent to serve notice on Respondents 2 to 4. Mr.T.K.S.Gandhi has entered appearance for the respondents 3 ad 4 and Mr.Akil Akbar Ali has entered appearance for the second respondent.

6. It is the plea of Mr.A.Kripakaran that despite the order of injunction in his favour, the respondents 2 to 4, who are bound by the decree, are attempting to interfere with his possession and hence, he has sought for police protection. Mr.Thankasivan, appearing for Mr.T.K.S.Gandhi and Mr.Akil Akbar Ali urged that what was allotted to the petitioner’s father in the suit for partition in O.S.No.1265 of 1962, was a paltry extent of 400 sq.ft. and today, the petitioner is attempting to take possession of a larger extent. Hence, they urged that the relief sought by the petitioner ought not to be granted and the writ petition should be dismissed.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the both sides. I have gone through the records.

8. At the outset, I have to decide whether the Writ of Mandamus seeking police protection is tenable or not. It is a settled position of law that a Writ of Mandamus seeking police protection for the purpose of taking possession of the property when title or possession has not been settled, is not maintainable. However, this Court is entitled to issue a Mandamus when the issues have been thrashed out before the jurisdictional Civil Court and consequently, confirmed by the higher courts and when the decree of the Civil Court has attained finality.

9. A Division Bench of this Court has held in Sri-La-Sri Sivasubramanyananda Swami v. Sri-La-Sri Arunachalasamy, 1993(1) MLJ 274 has held that not only the Court has the power to grant injunction but it also possesses the inherent power to pass orders for police protection. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in P.R. Murlidharan & Ors v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 501 has held that where a decree for injunction has been granted, a Writ of Mandamus in order to enforce the said decree is maintainable. Following the verdicts rendered by the Division Bench and that of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the Writ of Mandamus seeking police protection to enforce a decree of the Civil Court is certainly tenable.

10. In addition to these precedents, I should also point out that under Article 261 of the Constitution of India, it is the duty of the police, which is a branch of the Executive, to give full faith and credit to the decrees passed by the Civil Court. When a person who is empowered with a decree approaches police for protection to enforce the decree, it is the duty of the Executive – Police to offer protection in order to ensure that the decree of the Civil Court is respected.

11. Coming to the merits of the case, it is the plea of Mr.Akil Akbar Ali and Mr.Thankasivan that the extent which has been allotted is not the extent for which the petitioner seeks police protection.

12. A perusal of the prayer itself points out that the petitioner seeks for adequate police protection only with respect to the property situated at Door No.26, Thirumal Street No.1, Coimbatore – 641 001. Mr.Thankasivan has been kind enough to produce the decree of the suit in O.S.No.884 of 2011 dated 31.01.2020. In the said decree, the Schedule of Property is stated as under: “ SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY In Coimbatore Registration District, Coimbatore Sub Registration District, Coimbatore Taluk, in Tirumal Street No.1, the Southern portion of the partitioned family property, bounded on the North by properties of Narayanan, South by Thirumal Street No.1, Bounded on the East and West by properties of third parties, consisting of two East facing rooms and two South facing rooms, along with North

South open front yard, with Old Door Nos.15/13, 14, 15 & 16 and New Door Nos.24 to 26 with property tax assessment No.234846, with water tax assessment No.234846.”

13. A perusal of the decree shows that the petitioner has obtained a relief of permanent injunction at Door No.24 to 26 of Thirumal Street No.1, Coimbatore – 641 001. Therefore, the plea of the respondents that the petitioner seeks to enforce the decree for an area more that what he is entitled to, falls flat on its face.

14. As the decree granted by the Civil Court has attained finality with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court, this Court directs the first respondent police to afford protection with respect to the property for which they have obtained the decree in O.S.No.884 of 2011.

15. In fine, the Writ Petition is allowed. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No BKN

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. BKN To: The Inspector of Police Law and Order, B3 Variety Hall Police Station, Variety Hall Road, Town Hall, Coimbatore. WP Crl. No. 2504 of 2026 13-10-2026