Jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the suit.

These are two appeals filed against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga in A.S. No. 45 of 1957 reversing the decision of the learned District Munsif of Manamadurai in O.S. No. 210 of 1955. The learned District Munsif had held that the suit did not lie in a civil Court and that the proper forum was the District Magistrate and therefore dismissed the suit on the preliminary issue. On appeal by the Plaintiff the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the decision of the District Munsif and held that the civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The two defendants who are aggrieved by the order of the learned Subordinate Judge have preferred these two appeals.

As a matter of fact it has not been made clear as to what subsisting interest the first defendant has in the suit in so far as it has been made clear that the first defendant company was taken over by the State Government and the State Government is now managing the entire question of laying the supply lines and distributing the electric energy. However, both the Electric Company which has gone out of existence and whose place has been taken up by the State Government, and the State Government who stepped into the shoes of the Electric Company have preferred these appeals. C.M.A. No. 49 of 1958 is by the first defendant Electric Company, and C.M.A. No. 147 of 1958 is by the second defendant, the State Government.

The suit that has been preferred by the plaintiff Jagannatha Iyer is for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the high tension lines and posts from the plaintiff’s property and for recovery of Rs. 990 representing damages for the period from 1st January, 1953 to 1st October, 1955, at the rate of Rs. 360 per year, and for recovery of future damages at the same rate.

The plaintiff’s case is that he is the proprietor of Thattangulam village. With a view to supply electric current to Tiruppuvanam town from Manalur, the first defendant company had laid high tension electric lines to a length of one mile across the plaintiff’s lands and coconut topes in the said village. The planting of posts to support the lines began at the end of 1951. These operations were objected, to by the plaintiff, and more especially when the laying of the high tension lines was commenced, but the first defendant’s Engineer wrote a letter to the plaintiff dated 12th October, 1951, stating that the arrangement was only a temporary one and that the permanent lines will be laid in a different place without any hindrance to the plaintiff’s land. Actually after this letter was written, nothing was done in order to shift the lines from the plaintiff’s land. The plaintiff would appear to have demanded the shifting of the lines as undertaken by the first defendant company. Seeing that the first defendant company did not comply with their undertaking and the plaintiff having suffered damage to his property, a notice was sent on 12th August, 1954, on behalf of the plaintiff to the first defendant to remove the lines and posts within 31st December, 1954, or to pay damages by way of rent from 1st January, 1953. The case of the plaintiff was that the action of the first defendant company was trespass against which the plaintiff was entitled to relief. Therefore the plaintiff estimated his loss at Rs. 500 but he was content with claiming only Rs. 360 per year and filed the suit to recover this amount and also for a mandatory injunction against both the defendants to remove the high tension lines and the posts, etc.

Both the defendants would appear to have contended that the high tension lines were finally fixed without any objection on the part of the plaintiff. They pleaded that the plaintiff actually required the line to be laid along the said route expressing that it would be easier for him to obtain energy for the pump-sets he had proposed to erect in his coconut gardens. So the plea of estoppel was put forward against the plaint allegations. The further