(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner, her representatives to fence and safeguard her property measuring 48 cents in Survey No.139/6, Thalambur Village, against the unlawful interference, Criminal trespass and high-handed acts of respondents 3 and 4 and their men and agents.)

1. Heard Mr.K.Balu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side) for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Om Prakash, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr.Raghavalu Naidu, for respondents 3 and 4.

2. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus for police protection in order to fence and safeguard her property measuring 48 cents against the alleged unlawful interference, criminal trespass and high-handed acts of respondents 3 and 4.

3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner and her sister were born to one, T.Ethiraj. On account of disputes and differences, the petitioner’s mother had presented a suit for permanent injunction against one, T.Ehiraj from alienating the properties. Pending the suit, the application filed for interim injunction came to be dismissed by the learned District Munsif at Chengalpattu on 16.11.1990. Thereafter, the mother representing the petitioner and her sister Indirani, filed a suit for partition and separate possession on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court at Chengalpattu, in O.S.No.87 of 1991. A preliminary decree came to be passed by the Court on 22.01.1996. In the meantime, the defendant Ethiraj had alienated the property in favour of one Gnanarathinam Devairakkam. The said purchaser had sold the property to one Parthiban. The said Parthiban appointed one Munnuswamy as his power agent, who sold the property to one Valli. Thereafter, Valli had mutated the revenue records in her favour and transferred the property in favour of Sathileela, the fourth respondent herein, in the year 2012.

4. The fourth respondent executed a power of attorney in favour of the third respondent to manage and look after the property.

5. The fourth respondent states that, on coming to know of the proceedings, she filed an application in I.A.No.1085 of 2018 to implead herself in the final decree proceedings. This application was allowed, and the fourth respondent has been impleaded as a respondent in the final decree application in I.A.No.779 of 2006, initiated by the petitioner and her sister, Indirani. An Advocate Commissioner has been appointed, who has filed a report. The matter is now pending before the Court for passing of the final decree.

6. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the fourth respondent is attempting to change the physical features of the property and also to dispossess the petitioner from the same. As she has been strengthened with the preliminary decree, she has come forward with the present writ petition.

7. It is the plea of Mr.K.Balu that, as the petitioner and her sister are entitled to 2/3rd share and the fourth respondent is entitled to only 1/3rd share, she should be permitted to fence out her 32 cents of the available 48 cents.

8. Per contra, Mr.Om Prakash submits that the fourth respondent is a bona fide purchaser for value without due notice of the litigation and that she has always been in possession of the property. He states that the power agent has merely leveled the ground of the property, which is in possession of the fourth respondent.

9. I have considered the arguments. I have gone through the records.

10. Admittedly, there is a preliminary decree in favour of the petitioner and her sister. The extent of property involved is 2.90 acres of the immovable property situated at No.28, Ponmar Village and Post, Kelambakkam Firka, Chengalpattu Taluk and District. Of the five items involved, Item No.2, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, comprises a total available extent of 48 cents. The petitioner claims that she is in possession of the property by virtue of a preliminary decree and therefore, the police have to give protection. The fourth respondent claims that she is a bona fide purchaser in possession of the property. I am afraid that both the submissions are wrong.

11. Passing of the preliminary decree does not crystallise the right of a party over the property. All it does is to declare the shares that the party has in the property which is the subject matter of the suit. A litigant will get rights over the property only after the final decree is passed. Till that time, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.87 of 1991 and the persons claiming through the defendant are all treated to be in joint possession of the property. If they are in joint possession, Mr.K.Balu cannot claim a right to exclude the fourth respondent from possession.

12. Similarly, Mr.Om Prakash’s client cannot claim to be in exclusive possession when the fourth respondent is only a lis pendens purchaser. Being a lis pendens purchaser, she would be bound by the result of the decree. She had rightly approached the final decree Court seeking allotment of the property purchased by her to the share of her vendor. This is in order to crystallise the title to the purchase made by her. Therefore, till the final decree Court passes an order, neither the petitioner nor the fourth respondent can claim exclusive possession, and thereby, police protection.

13. In the light of the above discussions, this writ petition stands disposed of in the following terms :

                   (i) Both the petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4 shall maintain status quo as on today.

(ii) The learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu, is requested to dispose of I.A.No.799 of 2006 in O.S.No.87 of 1991 within a period of six(6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.