2017 Supreme(Mad) 3476
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
Gurusamy – Appellant
Versus
Duraisamy & Others – Respondent
S. A. No. 893 of 2001
Decided On : 13-11-2017
For the Appellant :S. Kaithamalai Kumaran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:P. Navaneetha Krishnan for M/s. K.S. Jayaganeshan, Advocates.
The central legal point established was the determination of ownership rights based on evidence of joint contribution and purchase documents.
Headnote:
electric motor - ownership dispute - 5 HP electric motor - S.F.No.509 - Tamil Nadu Electricity Board - Ex.A4 - Ex.B6 - Ex.B5 - Ex.B3 - Ex.B7
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership of a 5 HP electric motor in S.F.No.509. The plaintiff claimed absolute right to the electric motor based on a Will, while the defendants asserted equal ownership due to joint contribution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff did not have exclusive ownership of the electric motor as claimed, and that the defendants had equal right and ownership based on evidence of joint contribution and purchase documents.
Issues: Ownership of 5 HP electric motor, interference with water rights, validity of plaintiff's claim based on Will
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the plaintiff's claim of exclusive ownership was not supported by the evidence, and that the defendants had equal right to the electric motor based on joint contribution and purchase documents.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision that the defendants had equal share in the electric motor and pump-set, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought.
1. The second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2000 passed in A.S.No.158 of 2000 on the file of the First Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 24.08.1999 passed in O.S.No.566 of 1998 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Erode.
2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.
3. Suit for permanent injunction.
4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that S.F.No.509 of Attavanai Anumanpalli Village belonged to the plaintiff's family and the defendants' family and there is a Well in the above said field and the plaintiff's grandfather Kaliappa gounder was entitled to a half share, one Karuppana gounder and Vellappa gounder were entitled to each ¼ share in the Well and the land in S.F.No.509. On 26.03.1954, Kaliyappa gounder, Karuppanagounder and Sengayammal w/o. Velappa Gounder divided the properties by way of partition deed and as per terms of the partition deed, Kaliyappa Gounder was allotted ½ share in the Well in S.F.No.509 and on 21.11.1964, the plaintiff's father Ramasamy Gounder purchased ¼ share in the Well in S.F.No. 509 and other properties from Karuppana Gounder. The plaintiff's father pre-deceased his father Kaliappa Gounder and Kaliappa Gounder had executed a Will on 06.11.1974 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing his properties in favour of the plaintiff and thus, the plaintiff's family is entitled to ¾ share in the Well in S.F.No.509 and the Well therein. The first defendant is the son of Velappa gounder and Sengayammal and the second defendant is the wife of the first defendant. The defendants 3 & 4 are the sons of the defendants 1 & 2. The defendants are entitled to ¼ share in S.F.No.509 and the Well therein. The plaintiff's grandfather Kaliyappa Gounder obtained electric service connection in 1971 for 5 HP electric motor and obtained service connection number 69, old service connection No.578 and Kaliappa Gounder died on 12.1.1998 and the service connection continues to stand in the name of Kaliappa Gounder. The first defendant gave his consent for installing electric motor in the Well and thus, the plaintiff is enjoying the electric motor in the Well and the plaintiff's grandfather and the plaintiff had been paying the charges for the electric motor and irrigating his lands with the electric motor and while so, the defendants are not entitled to any right or share in the electric motor, interfered with the plaintiff's right to draw water from the Well using the electric motor in full and hence, the plaintiff has been necessitated to lay the suit for permanent injunction.
5. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is correct to state that S.F.No.509 belonged to the plaintiff's family and the defendants' family and there is a Well in the above said field and it is correct to state that Kaliappa gounder was entitled to half share in the Well and the parties have effected partition and correct to state that Kaliappa gounder was allotted ½ share in the Well and the averment that the plaintiff's father purchased ¼ share in the Well and other properties from Karuppanna Gounder is not admitted. It is false to state that the plaintiff's grandfather Kaliappa Gounder had executed the Will on 06.11.1974 bequeathing his property in favour of the plaintiff in a sound and disposing state of mind. It is false to state that the plaintiff's family is entitled to ¾ share in the Well. The service connection was not obtained by Kaliappa Gounder as put forth in the plaint. It is false to state that the plaintiff's is bailing water during his turn as pleaded in the plaint. It is false to state that the plaintiff's grandfather had obtained the service connection on his own and that, the first defendant gave his consent for the same and the plaintiff's grandfather has been paying the service charges for the electric mot