The central legal point established in the judgment is that the rights and powers of the electricity board to install poles and wires are subject to the obligation to consider objections raised by affected parties and obtain prior orders from concerned authorities.

1. The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.33 of 1996 on the file of Subordinate Court, Sankagiri confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.237 of 1993 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sankagiri.

2. The defendants in the suit are the appellants in the above second appeal. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.237 of 1993 against the defendants for the following reliefs:

.(a) Pass a Decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants;

.(b) restraining the defendants and their subordinates from in any way erecting or putting any new Electricity poles and laying new wires and giving any new connections in the existing pole in suit properties or in the alternative;

(C) directing the defendants to put new poles in front of the s.No.62/1, 68/1 and 68/2 and connecting some other poles out of suit properties. Through the courses shown as AOBCF and GHIJ in the plaint rough plan No.2 ;

(C1) Grant a permanent mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the poles and wire drawn in S.Nos.678/1 and 68/2 failing which making provisions for executing the permanent mandatory decree;

.(d) awarding the cost of this suit.

3. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs in the suit are as follows: -

.(i) The second plaintiff is the wife of the first plaintiff. The suit properties belong to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

.(ii) According to the plaintiffs, there is a pakka metal road running North to South which starts from Salem Main Road and reaches Elampillai. On the eastern side of the metal road, there is a Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 110/K.V. sub station. To show the topography of the sub station, plaintiffs filed a rough plan. On the northern side of the sub station, there is one land belonging to Palaniappa Gounder and Panchayat Road and then first plaintiffs land. The defendants installed three poles in S.No.62/1 belonging to the first plaintiff and the defendants tried to put extra two or three poles in the said land, when there is no necessity to erect new poles. The defendants also erected poles in the road poramboke. The defendants without erecting new poles in S.No.62/1, could have erected the poles in road poramboke. Similarly, the defendants tried to erect two or three extra electricity poles in S.NO.68/1 and 68/2. belonging to the second plaintiff. The plaintiffs proposed to start small scale industries and houses in the suit property. If the defendants erect extra poles in the suit property, the plaintiffs cannot plough the land and the lands cannot be used for agricultural purposes.

(iii) According to the plaintiffs, the defendants can erect poles in the road poramboke. Therefore, plaintiffs represented the matter to the defendants in person. But the defendants did not heed to the words of the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs have sent a representation to the defendants. In spite of the representation sent by the plaintiffs, defendants tried to erect new poles in the suit property. On the west of S.NO.62/1, poramboke land situate. Similarly, on the west and north of S.Nos. 68/1 and 68/2, poramboke lands situate. According to the plaintiffs, if the pole is erected and wire is drawn in the said poramboke land nobody will be affected. According to the plaintiffs, after the filing of the suit, the defendants tried to erect new poles in S.Nos.68/1 and 68/2 by putting up poles and laying new wires in the said survey numbers. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit.

4. The case of the defendants is as follows:

.(i) According to the defendants, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has taken all steps to improve the voltage and supply condition surrounding the area where the substation has been erected. According to the defendants, the erection of 10 M.V.A. Power Transformer and other substation works have been completed and the supply has bee