Woman With Court-Recorded Possession Under Partition Decree Gets Police Protection Despite Pending Challenge: Madras HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner, relying on a civil-court decree and recorded delivery of possession, was entitled to police protection against alleged interference with her possession

The court held

The Court allowed the relief sought and directed the police to grant protection to the petitioner in respect of the lands in Survey Nos. 587/2A1, 587/2A5, 601/1, 602/5, 603/1 and 604/1 at Balethottam Village.

It also directed

The writ petition was disposed of, without deciding the decree’s validity or its effect on the purchaser.

01Facts

The petitioner claimed possession of specified lands at Balethottam Village under a final decree in a partition suit, O.S. No. 77 of 2016, and delivery recorded in execution proceedings.

p. 2 · p. 3 · ¶ 2–3

The Court noted that possession was recorded as delivered on 11 July 2024; the petition’s prayer, however, refers to delivery on 9 March 2024.

p. 2 · p. 3 · ¶ 2–3

The petitioner alleged that respondents 4–6 were interfering with her possession and sought police protection after making a representation. Those respondents disputed her entitlement, alleged collusion in the partition proceedings, and stated that a purchaser from one of them was in possession; they also referred to a pending civil suit, O.S. No. 129 of 2024.

p. 3 · ¶ 5 · p. 4 · ¶ 5

The police stated that they would comply with the Court’s directions.

p. 4 · ¶ 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner, relying on a civil-court decree and recorded delivery of possession, was entitled to police protection against alleged interference with her possession

p. 4 · ¶ 8–9 · p. 5 · ¶ 10

ii.2. Whether the alleged collusion affecting the decree, or its validity and binding effect on the purchaser, should be determined in this writ petition

p. 4 · ¶ 8 · p. 5 · ¶ 10

03Law Applied

The Court relied on Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, under which the bailiff’s endorsement recording delivery of possession receives presumptive protection, absent demonstrable fraud.

p. 4 · ¶ 8

It further applied the principle that a person whose possession is supported by a civil-court decree may obtain police protection against interference; disputes concerning the decree’s validity or its binding effect on a purchaser are matters for determination in the pending civil proceedings.

p. 5 · ¶ 9–10

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 114

04Reasoning

The Court found that the execution records supported the petitioner’s claim that possession had been delivered to her on 11 July 2024.

p. 4 · ¶ 8

The respondents’ allegations of collusion did not establish demonstrable fraud for the purposes of this writ petition.

p. 4 · ¶ 8

The Court therefore declined to decide whether the decree was valid or binding on the purchaser, leaving those questions to the pending civil suit.

p. 4 · ¶ 8 · p. 5 · ¶ 9–10

Given the decree and recorded delivery, it concluded that alleged interference with the petitioner’s possession should be prevented through police protection.

p. 4 · ¶ 8 · p. 5 · ¶ 9–10