1. Petitioner has been engaged in a civil dispute with the 4th respondent for the last one and a half decades. Despite succeeding in the civil suit, the petitioner is still unable to enjoy the fruits of the decree. She has hence approached this Court, seeking police protection.

2. Petitioner’s husband claims to be the owner of 5.50 Ares of land in re-survey No.205/6 and 205/8 of Kannamangalam Village. The 4th respondent, subsequently filed O.S. No.222/2012, claiming easement right of way by prescription, over the property of the writ petitioner. The Munsiff Court, Mavelikara by judgment dated 31.03.2015 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff – the 4th respondent herein. On appeal, the Sub Court Mavelikara declined to interfere and dismissed the appeal. The judgment and decree was confirmed by this Court in R.S.A No.97/2025 as per judgment dated 06.02.2025. The Civil Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had another way to his property which was suppressed at the time of filing of the suit while claiming easement right of way over the petitioner’s husband’s property.

3. After the dismissal of the suit filed by the 4th respondent was affirmed by this Court, when the petitioner and her husband tried to construct a compound wall, the 4th respondent objected. In the meantime, after the judgment of the High Court, the 4th respondent is alleged to have trespassed and removed the stones laid at the boundary of the petitioner’s husband’s property. It is at this juncture that petitioner approached the police seeking protection for construction of the compound wall and also for appropriate reliefs.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent stating that though he had failed in establishing his right of easement by prescription, the same cannot confer a right upon the petitioner to construct a boundary wall since the boundary has not so far been fixed or demarcated. It is also stated that the petitioner has failed to show that the respondent had caused any unauthorized obstruction which leads to a law and order situation for the purpose of warranting the grant of protection by the police. It was also pointed out that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not a substitute for a civil suit for fixation of boundaries and there is no statutory duty fixed upon the police to demarcate the boundary of the petitioner.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader.

6. A claim of easement right of way undoubtedly is a clear indication of an acceptance and acquiescence into the title of the property of the servient owner. When the 4th respondent sought declaration of his right of way over petitioner’s husband’s property, the latter being the servient owner, legally the former admits the title to that property. The 4th respondent had not claimed any relief for fixation of boundary and he is even estopped from denying the title of the servient owner. Further, he had not claimed any relief for fixation of boundaries in that suit.

7. After dismissal of the regular second appeal filed by the 4th respondent, he is alleged to have trespassed into petitioner’s husband's property, removed the stones and has taken law into his hands. At this juncture, petitioner has approached the police seeking appropriate police protection for the construction of the compound wall and for other reliefs.

8. True that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a substitute for a suit for fixation of boundaries. However, the 4th respondent cannot claim title over any portion of the petitioner's husband’s property by virtue of estoppel and he has not instituted any such suit as well. As mentioned earlier, on the contrary, the 4th respondent is accepting the title of the petitioner’s husband’s over the property on which he claimed a right of way.

9. It is evident from the pleadings in the writ petition as well as the three judgments in favour of the petitioner’s husband that the portion of the property over which the 4th respondent claimed right of way by easement, is the same area where he is now raising a dispute on boundary. Therefore, the contention of the 4th respondent based on the judgment in [2016 (3) KHC 280] Ajith Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Police, Ekm & Others may not entirely come to his aid.

10. A compound wall is required to protect a person’s property from interference by other persons. Constructing such a wall cannot even prejudice the fourth respondent. If at all he is ultimately able to establish that he has any right, he can always seek appropriate remedies. Till then, petitioner’s and her husband’s right to enjoy their property is required to be protected and the property has to be secured.

11. Though employing a police force cannot be a means to sidestep the need for dispute resolution in competent courts, the same cannot be applied as a principle, ignoring the factual circumstances of each case.

12. The circumstances that have arisen in the present case is an instance where this Court cannot remain aloof from the practical realities. If despite contesting a civil case for one and a half decades, petitioner and her husband are still obstructed from enjoying his/her property under one pretext or the other, the Court can direct the police to come to the aid of persons like the petitioner. It would be a travesty of justice, if, even after being successful in a long drawn out civil dispute, a party is compelled to approach the civil court again to establish his right. The decision in Dr. James Thayil v. State of Kerala and Others [2022 SCC Online Ker 1111] is relevant in this context. In the said case, police protection was granted to construct a compound wall on a property which was delivered to the petitioner therein, in execution of a decree.

13. The circumstances reveal that petitioner’s right to enjoy her husband’s property is required to be protected and the property ought to be secured by an order of police protection.

                  Accordingly, there will be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner and her husband for their life as well as for their property, including for the construction of a compound wall, without any interference or obstruction from the 4th respondent.

                  Writ petition is allowed as above.