The main legal point established in the judgment is that no injunction or mandatory injunction can be granted to a co-owner against another co-owner in a property dispute, and remedies under the Indian Electricity Act must be exhausted before seeking relief through a civil suit.

1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has projected this Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 03.03.1999 in A.S.No.109 of 1998 on the file of the Sub-Court, Bhavani, Erode District in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 05.08.1998 in O.S.No.370 of 1990 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani.

2. The First Appellate Court, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.109 of 1998 (filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff) on 03.03.1999 has opined that 'without prejudice to the right of the Appellant/Plaintiff in any manner', the electricity connection from Service Connection No.60 has been given to the 3rd Respondent/3rd Defendant's another Well and for giving such electricity service connection, no hardship or loss is caused to the Appellant/Plaintiff and also by giving such electricity connection, the said act cannot be considered to be against law and if the relief of mandatory injunction is granted in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff, then it will cause hardship and loss to the 3rd Respondent/3rd Defendant and viewed in that perspective, dismissed the Appeal with costs, thereby confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court in the main Suit.

3. Earlier, in the main Suit (filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff), one to two issues have been framed for consideration. On behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff, witness P.W.1 has been examined and Exs.A1 to A10 have been marked. On the side of the Respondents/Defendants, the 3rd Respondent/3rd Defendant has been examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B3 have been marked.

4. The trial court, on a scrutiny of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to a clear conclusion that for two Survey Numbers, the Well is common and also the service connection is common and since there is no water in the Well, by putting a bore and to draw water, to fix an Air Compressor and to use the same, this service connection is utilised and that there is no possibility for the Appellant/Plaintiff to get affected and consequently, dismissed the Suit with costs.

5. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has formulated the following Substantial Questions of Law for rumination :

(i) Whether both the Courts below erred in holding that the Appellant was not put to any difficulty or hardship because of change over switch given in Service Connection No.60 to enable the 3rd respondent to take water from the borewell situated in another land?

(ii) Whether both the Courts below failed to note that the Appellant being a co-owner is entitled to prevent the other co-owner from utilising the electric connection for some other purpose?

The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Substantial Questions of Law Nos. 1 and 2:

6. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have committed an error in dismissing the Suit as well as the Appeal and in fact, the Appellant/Plaintiff is a co-sharer of the motor pumpset connected in the Suit Land and that the Appellant/Plaintiff has got equal share in the motor pumpset and both the Courts have failed to appreciate that the Appellant/Plaintiff is entitled to equal half right in respect of the electricity connection, even though Service Connection No.60 stands in the name of the 3rd Respondent/3rd Defendant.

7. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff that Respondents 2 and 3/Defendants 2 and 3 should have given a notice to the Appellant/Plaintiff before giving such change over. The plea of the Appellant/Plaintiff is that if the 3rd Respondent/3rd Defendant uses Air Compressor change over switch, then the Appellant/Plaintiff will not be in a position to operate the motor and therefore, she cannot draw water through motor pumpset, in which she is entitled to half share.

8. Lastly, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff that granting the relief of mandatory injunction is purely w