M.Kannan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 09/01/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI M.Kannan ... Petitioner Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep By The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Palaiyanur Police Station, Sivagangai District.

3. The Sub Inspector of Police, Palaiyanur Police Station, Sivagangai District.

4. Indumathi, W/o.Raman, Plot No.1566, TNHB Colony, Mela Anuppanadi, Madurai.

... Respondents PRAYER :- To direct the respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate police protection to the petitioner for entering the subject and house which is located in SF.No.278/16 of Palaiyanur Village, Thirupuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District, based on the petitioner's representation dated 08.12.2025. 1/5

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Ramanathan, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. M.Sakthi Kumar for R1 Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate police protection to the petitioner for entering the subject and house which is located in SF.No.278/16 of Palaiyanur Village, Thirupuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District, based on the petitioner's representation dated 08.12.2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 4th respondent herein is the vendor of the petitioner with respect to the subject land which consists a mud house. A sale deed has been duly executed and the sale consideration was also made to the vendor. Despite the same, the vendor has not, so far, vacated the premises in the mud house situated in the subject property. In this regard, for the purpose of sending her out, the petitioner had made a representation to 2/5

the respondent police seeking police protection. Since the same was not considered, the present petition came to be filed.

3. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that there was a money dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.3 1⁄2 Lakhs from the petitioner. As a security to the amount, the fourth respondent had executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the fourth respondent is ready to pay the entire money. The fourth respondent has been residing in the house. The petitioner, instead of executing a usufructuary mortgage deed, he is managed to get a registered sale deed.

4. Heard either sides and carefully perused the materials available on record.

5. It is understood by this Court that it is a practice in an around the Districts of Madurai and Sivagangai, where the money lenders extend loan to borrowers on execution of sale deed with respect to certain property belonging to the borrowers and thereafter in many cases even 3/5

after repayment of the borrowed amount, the money lenders refused to cancel the sale deed. However, it is clear that there is a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, considering the fact that it is a case in civil nature, the petitioner is directed to approach the appropriate civil court for seeking appropriate relief.

6. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

09.01.2026 NCC: yes / no Index : yes / no Internet : yes / no pnn To

1. The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Palaiyanur Police Station, Sivagangai District.

3. The Sub Inspector of Police, Palaiyanur Police Station, Sivagangai District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J pnn

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.504 of 2026 Date : 09/01/2026 5/5