JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No 150 of 1998 dated 04.04.2000 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi partly allowed and partly dismissed in O.S.No.213 of 1994 dated 14.09.1998 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil.)

1. The unsuccessful first defendant before the Court below is the appellant herein.

2. The plaintiff/first respondent in the appeal had filed O.S.No.213 of 1994 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil for the relief of declaration that he is entitled to 4/15th share in the suit Well. He further prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from in any way interfering with his possession of the suit schedule Well and for a mandatory injunction as against the authorities of the electricity department namely D2 to D4 to provide service connection to the suit Well. The suit was decreed as prayed for by the trial Court. The first defendant filed A.S.No.150 of 1998 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi. The learned Subordinate Judge partly allowed the appeal confirming the decree for declaration of 4/15th share and permanent injunction decree, but dismissed the suit with regard to the prayer for mandatory injunction. Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the first defendant.

3. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed:

1. Whether the courts below misdirected themselves and erred in law in throwing the burden of proof on the first defendant to prove that he is entitled to the suit well?

2. Whether the Courts below erred in law in placing reliance on patta proceedings, which patta proceedings took place pending the suit and when the civil Court is competent to decide all the disputed questions of title as well as possession?

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had purchased 4/15th share in the suit schedule Well under Exhibits A1 and A2 sale deeds dated 19.04.1998 and 13.12.1988. He further contended that the balance share namely 11/15th belongs to the first defendant. Though the plaintiff applied for service connection to the suit Well, the authority had not responded. But, on the other hand, they have given service connection to the first defendant. Based upon the said service connection, the first defendant is now disputing the share of the plaintiff in the suit Well and he is not permitting the plaintiff to draw water from the suit Well. Based on the said allegation, the suit came to be filed.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first defendant had disputed the share of the plaintiff in the Well. The first defendant had contended that he had given application for providing service connection and after verifying the documents, service connection was granted to him to the suit Well on 31.05.1994. The first defendant further contended that he is entitled to the Well exclusively based upon the sale deeds.

6. The trial Court after going through Exhibits A1 and A2, has given a specific finding that the plaintiff is entitled to 4/15th share in the suit Well. The trial Court has also given a finding that despite giving application, the request of the plaintiff for providing service connection has not been considered by the department. However, the trial Court has not given any finding with regard to the allegations and countered allegation for granting of permanent injunction decree.

7. The trial Court proceeded to decree the suit as prayed for granting a decree for declaration of 4/15th share in favour of the plaintiff and also granted a decree for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with the enjoyment of the suit Well by the plaintiff. The trial Court further granted a decree for mandatory injunction as against the authorities of the Electricity Department to provide service connection to the plaintiff subject to the rules and