V. Ratnam, J.

1. The plaintiff, who succeeded before the trial Court and lost before the lower appellate Court, is the appellant in this second appeal. The appellant is a manufacturer of twisted art silk yarn and for this purpose, he has installed two twisting machines, each operated by one H.P. electric motor. In 1955, the respondent gave two service connections to the appellant, viz., Service connection Nos. 106/4-A and 50/1-A. On 25.9.1974, the respondent placed a test meter near the distribution main line and this, according to the appellant, has lowered him in the estimation of the villagers, as the fixation of a test meter, is only for the purpose of detecting theft of electric energy. The appellant claimed that the respondent is not entitled to fix the test meter and in spite of protracted correspondences, the respondent did not remove the test meter and it was thereafter, the appellant instituted the suit praying for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove the test meter fixed by it near the distribution main connecting the service connections of the appellant.

2. In the written statement, the respondent resisted the suit contending that