In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 13.09.2006 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM Second Appeal No.888 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2006 1. The Executive Engineer Operation and Maintenance Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle North Vadavalli, Coimbatore 43. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer Operation and Maintenance Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle North, Perur, Coimbatore 10. 3. The Assistant Engineer Operation and Maintenance Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle North, Kalampalayam. .. Appellants vs. 1. K. Senniammal 2. K. Viswanathan 3. K. Sivashanmugam 4. K. Loganayaki 5. K. Maragatham .. Respondents Second Appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2005 made in A.S.No.146 of 2005 on the file of Prl. Subrodinate Judge, Coimbatore filed against the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2004 made in O.S.No.954 of 1999 on the file of Second Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore. For appellants : Mr. N. Muthuswaami For respondents : Mr. A. Anbarasu .... JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful defendants, who lost the case before both the Courts below, are the appellants in the above appeal. One A.Kumarasamy (since deceased) filed the suit in O.S.No.954 of 1999 on the file of Second Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, praying for a decree of declaration that the cancellation order dated 4.11.1998 issued by the defendants is null and void and for consequential injunction directing the defendants to effect new electric service connection to the well in the suit property in the name of the plaintiffs for agricultural purposes. In the plaint, it is sated that the plaintiff A. Kumarasamy (since deceased) is an agriculturist doing cultivation in his own properties and lease-hold lands. Out of his savings, he dug up a well in the suit property with an intention to lift ground water for cultivation. He submitted an application dated 25.9.1991 to the defendants for the supply of electricity for agricultural purposes. His application was registered as No.64/91-92 and the defendants also issued a receipt dated 25.9.1991. He waited for the past 7 to 8 years to get electric service connection. At the appropriate time when he sought for permission for service connection, that was turned down by the defendants who issued cancellation order dated 4.11.1998. Questioning the same, he filed the suit with the prayer mentioned above. Pendente lite the plaintiff died, the respondents herein were brought on record as Legal Representatives of the deceased plaintiff A. Kumarasamy.
2. On behalf of the defendants / Electricity Board, the 3rd defendant filed a written statement wherein it is stated that the plaintiff’s application was registered as 64/91-92 under receipt dated 25.9.1991. According to the defendants, originally the first plaintiff Kumarasamy filed an application to get electric service connection for the well situate in S.F.No.43/2.b.3 of Madhampatti village. Subsequently, the said Kumarasamy filed an application on 18.10.1997 before the 3rd defendant stating that he had sold the property in S.F.No.43/2.b.3 of Madhampatti village to third parties and hence, he wanted his application to be considered to effect electric service connection in respect of survey No.63/1b2b in the same village. Though the said request was not accepted, the plaintiff was intimated to express his readiness to avail electric service connection in his property in survey No.43/2.b.3, Madhampatti village, for which the plaintiff sent a reply on 17.8.1998 stating that he had already submitted necessary documents and requested to transfer the said service connection from the survey No.43/2.b.3, Madhampatti village to Survey No.63/1b2b of the same village. Since the request of the plaintiff was not accepted, he rushed to the Court.
3. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff Kumarasamy died and his legal representatives were impleaded as plaintiffs 2 to 6. The fourth plaintiff, K.Sivashanmugam, son of Kumarasamy was examined as P.W.1 and one Jeganathan was examined as P.W.2. The plaintiffs have also produced and marked Exs.A1 to A-17. On the side of the defendants, one Shanmugasundaram was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B-1 to B-7 were marked. Learned Second Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, after finding that the request of the plaintiffs for grant of electric service connection in respect of their well in survey No.63/1b2b is reasonable and acceptable, granted a decree as prayed for.
4. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree of the trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.146 of 2005 before the Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore. Learned Principal Sub Judge, after determining the points for consideration and after finding that the request of the plaintiffs is bona fide, confirmed the judgement of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the Electricity Board. Hence, the second appeal.
5. The respondents are represented by counsel even at the time of admission.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondents. The documents produced on the side of the plaintiffs clearly show that survey No.63/1b2b belonged to the plaintiff A.Kumarasamy (since deceased). Accordingly, both the Courts below have rightly held that the present plaintiffs who are the legal representatives of A.Kumarasamy are the owners of the said land. It is also not in dispute that as per Ex.A-15, the Electricity Board sent an intimation to the effect that they are ready to provide electric service connection to the well in survey No.43/2b3 and inasmuch as the same cannot be utilised for the said survey number, the first plaintiff Kumarasami requested for providing service connection to the well in survey No.63/1b2b of the same village. It is seen that without suppressing any fact, the plaintiffs have made a request since the land in survey No.43/2b3 is not available, the service connection may be given to their well in survey No.63/1b2b. Both the courts below, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that by accepting the claim of the plaintiffs, the defendants are not going to lose anything since they had already offered service connection to the well in survey No.43/2b3. Inasmuch as both the Courts below have considered the entire circumstances, ordered for electric service connection to the well in survey No.63/1b2b to lift water for the agricultural purposes, in the absence of any other material, I am not inclined to interfere with the said concurrent factual conclusion. As rightly pointed out by both the courts below, inasmuch as the Electricity Board is willing to provide service connection to the well in survey No.43/2b3, by providing service connection to the well in survey No.63/1b2b, the Board is not going to lose anything. In this view of the matter, I agree with the conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below. I do not find any substantial question of law for interference by this Court.
Under these circumstances, the second appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP., is also dismissed.
kh
[VSANT 7971]