The central legal point established is that the plaintiff's right to use the electricity service connection and motor pump set is restricted to his 1/3rd share alone, as per the Electricity Act, Section 11.

This second appeal is focussed by the unsuccessful plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 30.12.2004 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai in A.S.No.126 of 1997 confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.10.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif No.1, Thiruvannamalai.

2. The parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

a] The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

- To pass a judgment and decree in his favour

- declaring plaintiff's title to the schedule mentioned property;

- granting an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, servants from interfering in the plaintiff's enjoyment of 1/3 rd share in the schedule mentioned electric service connection No.11 to the schedule mentioned property;

- directing the defendant to pay the cost of the suit.

(extracted as such)

on the main ground that the plaintiff acquired title over the three items of properties found described in the schedule of the plaint and also 1/3 rd share in the electric service connection No.11 the motor pump set concerned and according to him the defendant, who happens to be one of the co-owners of the well and the said electric policy and motor pump set attempted to prevent the plaintiff from exercising his right as set out supra. Hence the suit.

b] The defendant filed the written statement denying and refuting the allegations/averments in the plaint.

Precisely the case of the defendant is to the effect that the plaintiff's title to the property as claimed in the plaint is not in controversy. However, having purchased 1/3 rd share in the motor pump set and in the electric service connection No.11, so as to draw water from the common well, the plaintiff attempted to irrigate lands, which he did not purchase from his vendor. According to the defendant, the suit should be dismissed.

c] Whereupon issues were framed.

d] Up went the trial, wherein the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A12. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and marked Ex.B1.

e] Ultimately the trial court decreed the suit as under:

VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED

(extracted as such)

Precisely, the trial court declared the title of the plaintiff over the suit properties; but granted permanent injunction so as to enable the plaintiff to irrigate his 33 = cents of land in first item of the suit properties by drawing water from the common well making use of the said motor pump set.

f] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such rejection of the part of the prayer for permanent injunction, the plaintiff filed the appeal, for nothing but to be dismissed by the first appellate court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.

4. Challenging and impugning the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, this Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff on various grounds suggesting the substantial questions of law.

5. My learned predecessor at the time of admitting the second appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law.

1. Whether the courts below were right in restricting in the usage of electricity service connection in the common well by one co-owner namely the plaintiff/appellant when it has been held that he is entitled to 1/3 rd right in the said service connection to take water for irrigation of lands in the same ayacut?

2. Whether the courts below are justified in rejecting the claim of the plaintiff/appellant to use the electricity service connection to his portion of the properties within the allotted 1/3 rd time so long as the same will not affect the respondent adversely, more especially when the plaintiff's 1/3 rd right in the service connection and the usage of water from the well are declared in his favour