JUDGMENT : N.NAGARESH, J. The petitioner is a senior citizen. She is living with her daughter. She is a spinster aged 32 years. The petitioner states that she has a property having an extent of 1.66 Ares in Perumbaikadu Village in the name of her daughter. The property has fixed boundaries and compound wall. 2. The petitioner states that on 16.03.2025, the 3 rd respondent and others trespassed into the property and uprooted 4 jack fruit trees, 4 coconut trees, 2 tamarind trees, 2 gua trees, 8 banana plantains, 3 teak trees, 2 mahogany trees and 2 Anjili trees. They also destroyed the compound wall. 3. The petitioner states that the 3 rd respondent is claiming the property stating that there is a court decree in his favour. The petitioner or her daughter were no parties to any such civil proceedings. The 5 th respondent has filed a frivolous suit. If the 5 th respondent has obtained any decree, the remedy available to the decree holder is to file execution petition. Respondents 3 to 5 cannot take law into their hands. Though the petitioner submitted complaints to the police, the police has not granted protection to the petitioner. 4. Respondents 3 and 4 resisted the writ petition. The respondents stated that the property was originally owned by the 5 th respondent. The 3 rd respondent filed OS No.569/2010 before the Sub Court, Kottayam. In another EP No.8/2009 in OS No.476/2003 of the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam, one Advocate K.P. Sreekumar purchased the property. The said civil proceedings were fraudulent. Respondents 3 and 4 have never threatened or intimidated the petitioner. The present writ petition is to misuse police protection to cover up the illegal action. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2 and the respective learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5. 6. The petitioner is seeking police protection against alleged trespass and destruction of trees in 1.66 Ares of land in Perumbaikadu Village. The petitioner states that her daughter Midhuna Mohan is the owner of the property. 7. The 3 rd respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the property originally belonged to the 5 th respondent-Natarajan. The 3 rd respondent's son filed OS No.569/2010 in the Sub Court, Kottayam for specific performance. The petitioner states that her daughter Midhuna Mohan is the owner of the property. 7. The 3 rd respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the property originally belonged to the 5 th respondent-Natarajan. The 3 rd respondent's son filed OS No.569/2010 in the Sub Court, Kottayam for specific performance. The Suit was decreed in favour of the son of the 3 rd respondent. 8. The 3 rd respondent would further submit that the property records were fraudulently manipulated in another case, EP No.8/2009 in OS No.476/2003 of the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam. One Advocate K.P. Sreekumar purchased the property in auction. The petitioner has purchased the property from the said Advocate K.P. Sreekumar. Noting the forgery, the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kottayam has directed initiation of criminal proceedings. In CC No.223/2023, the police investigation report identified four court staff and two Advocates as accused. 9. It is therefore evident that the disputed transactions involved are pending consideration before the civil and criminal courts. The title to the property claimed by the daughter of the petitioner is in dispute right now. In the circumstances, no police protection can be ordered in favour of the petitioner invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.