The Executive Engineer Operation and Maintenance Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, The Assistant Executive Engineer Operation and Maintenance Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and The Assistant Engineer Operation and Maintenance Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs K. Senniammal and Others

P. Sathasivam, J.—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.

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.

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.

Aggrieved by the judgment 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 judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the Electricity Board. Hence, the second appeal.

The respondents are represented by counsel even at the time of admission.

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.