Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give police protection to Mr.Senthil Sithamalai and Mrs.Rukmani Sithamalai during their visit to India from United States of America based on the complaint given by the petitioner to the respondents on 11.10.2010. 2. In the affidavit it is stated as follows: "4. I submit that my ex daughter in law is working as Cashier in a Bank at Florida and she is also a permanent resident of USA. Even now she is residing there only. Since there was no cordial relationship between my son and his ex-ife, my wife Mrs.Rukmani Sithamalai went to USA in the month of May 2003 to pacify between them. Thereafter, my son and my wife never came to India. The reason for the same is that often myself and my son got threatening phone calls and threatening news from our relations, that if my son and my wife landed in India, their life would be in danger. 5.I submit that they are threatening by so many ways and further they told our common relations that their daughter could not come to India along with their grand children, due to the restrictions imposed by the Court of USA and for that my son and my wife are responsible. When their daughter could not come to India with the grand children, in the same way, my son and my wife should not come to India. The passports of the children are with my son as per the order of the Court, hence the children are not allowed to take out of U.S.A. 6. I submit that due to the divorce there developed enmity between both the families and we are not in talking terms for the several years. My wife's brother is a retiral IFS officer and he is permanently residing at Salem. His son Mr.S.Vikram is residing at Adyar, Chennai-20. 7.I submit that now from 2003 onwards I am residing alone at my native place and there is none to help me. As long as my health is in good condition, I could do my work and I was able to look after myself. His son Mr.S.Vikram is residing at Adyar, Chennai-20. 7.I submit that now from 2003 onwards I am residing alone at my native place and there is none to help me. As long as my health is in good condition, I could do my work and I was able to look after myself. But, now the Doctors told me that my kidneys were affected and I am undergoing dialysis then and there and I am not in a position to move around and I could not to do my day to day affairs. At this juncture, I invited my son and my wife to come down to India and I expressed them that I wanted to see them before my last days. 8. I submit that I understood from our common relations that my son's ex-in-laws are planning to hire rowdies /gundas to kill my son and my wife during their visit to India. They are capable of doing anything for the reason that they are very much angry towards my son and my wife and they thought that my wife and my son are responsible for the divorce. Further one of my son's friend Mr.Nagarajan Venkataraman, who is having contact with my in laws family sent a mail to my son stating that my son's ex in law are planning to endanger the life of my wife and my son. 9. I submit that now I am totally panic and I wanted my son and wife to be near me in the last days. The ex in laws of my son, planned to put an end to my son, for the reason that if his life is over then their daughter can come to India with the children and there would not be any hindrance for them to visit India. With that motive only they are waiting for my son and my wife to come to India." 3. On the averments made herein above, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a threat of life to the petitioner, therefore he is entitled to police protection. The petitioner has also sent complaints to the respondents for police protection, to his wife and son as and when they visit India. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with the question of providing police protection, in the case of P.R.MURALIDHARAN AND OTHERS VS. The petitioner has also sent complaints to the respondents for police protection, to his wife and son as and when they visit India. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with the question of providing police protection, in the case of P.R.MURALIDHARAN AND OTHERS VS. SWAMI DHARMANANDA THEERTHA PADAR AND OTHERS reported in (2006) 4 SCC 501 , has been pleased to lay down the following guidelines: "12. It is one thing to say that in a given case a person may be held to be entitled to police protection, having regard to the threat perception, but it is another thing to say that he is entitled thereto for holding an office and discharging certain functions when his right to do so is open to question. A person could not approach the High Court for the purpose of determining such disputed questions of fact which were beyond the scope and purport of the jurisdiction of the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction as it also involved determination of disputed questions of fact. Respondent 1 who sought to claim a status was required to establish the same in a court of law in an appropriate proceeding. He for one reason or the other, failed to do so. The provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure stare on his face. He, therefore, could not have filed a writ petition for getting the selfsame issues determined in his favour which he could not do even by filing a suit. Indeed the jurisdiction of the writ court is wide while granting relief to a citizen of India so as to protect his life and liberty as adumbrated under Article 21 of the Constitution, but while doing so it could not collaterally go into that question, determination whereof would undoubtedly be beyond its domain. What was necessary for determination of the question arising in the writ petition was not the interpretation of the documents alone, but it required adduction of oral evidence as well. Such evidence was necessary for the purpose of explaining the true nature of the deed of trust, as also the practice followed by this trust. In any event, the impleading applicant herein, as noticed hereinbefore, has raised a contention that he alone was ordained to hold the said office as per the bye-laws of the trust. Such evidence was necessary for the purpose of explaining the true nature of the deed of trust, as also the practice followed by this trust. In any event, the impleading applicant herein, as noticed hereinbefore, has raised a contention that he alone was ordained to hold the said office as per the bye-laws of the trust. The qualification of the first respondent to hold the office was also in question. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that such disputed questions could not have been gone into by the High Court in a writ proceeding. 14.For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. However, in the event the first respondent feels that he as a person should receive protection to his life, he may make an appropriate representation to the Superintendent of police who after causing an inquiry made in this behalf may pass an appropriate order as is permissible in law. The appeal is allowed with the aforementioned observations. 18. In the case on hand, various disputed questions arose based on a deed of trust and the facts pleaded by the writ petitioner and controverted by the other side. The High Court should have normally directed the writ petitioner to have his rights adjudicate upon, in an appropriate suit in a civil court. The fact that a writ petitioner may be barred from approaching the civil court, in view of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or some other provisions, is no ground for the High Court to take upon itself, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the duty to adjudicate on the civil rights for the purpose of deciding whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to the police authorities for the protection of the alleged rights of the the writ petitioner. A writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to the person of a writ petitioner can be issued, when the court is satisfied that there is a threat to his person and the authorities have failed to perform their duties and it is different from granting relief for the first time to a person either to allegedly protect his right to property or his right to an office, especially when the pleadings themselves disclose that disputed questions are involved. My learned Brother has rightly pointed out that the High Court was in error in proceeding to adjudicate on the rights and obligations arising out of the trust deed merely based on the affidavits and the deed itself. I fully agree with my learned Brother that the High Court should not have undertaken such an exercise on the basis that the right of the writ petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution is sought to be affected by the actions of the contesting respondents and their supporters and that can be prevented by the issue of the writ of Mandamus prayed for. 19. A writ for "police protection" so-called. has only a limited scope, as, when the court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil court or, atleast at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order." 5. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can safely be said that the case of the petitioner does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The averments made in the affidavit show that it is the presumption of the petitioner, with no positive evidence. The basis of threat is also E-mail sent by close friend and not by any stranger, such evidence is not difficult to create. No ground is made out for grant of police protection. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.