Co-owners in a service connection have shared rights over all associated equipment and cannot be excluded by one record holder's claim of exclusive rights.

JUDGMENT :

A.D.MARIA CLETE, J. 

This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2012 made in A.S. No. 34 of 2009 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2009 made in O.S. No. 80 of 2007 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi. The appellant herein was the 5th defendant in the suit. Respondents 1 and 2 were the plaintiffs. Respondents 3 to 6 were the officials of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they were before the trial Court.

3. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking two reliefs. The first relief was a direction to the Electricity Board authorities to include the names of the plaintiffs as co-sharer service holders in Service Connection No. 197, along with the electric motor and pump set attached to the common well. The second relief was a permanent injunction restraining the 5th defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of the changeover switch installed in the same service connection. The suit property is the common electricity service connection, electric motor and pump set installed in the common well in S.F. No. 26/4-B, Agrahara Venkarai Village, Velur Taluk, Namakkal District.

4. The case of the plaintiffs was that they had a one-third right in the common well and in the connected electricity service arrangement. According to them, this right had already been declared by the competent civil Court in O.S. No. 139 of 2003 by decree dated 26.04.2004. In the said earlier suit, the Court declared their one-third right in S.C. No. 197, electric motor pump set and related irrigation right, and further restrained the defendants therein from obstructing the plaintiffs from using the service connection and motor pump set to irrigate their share of the land by drawing water from the common well.

5. The further case of the plaintiffs was that, about two years before the suit, the 5th defendant dug a bore well in his land and installed a compressor. Since the existing switch for the electric motor could not be used for the compressor also, the Electricity Board installed a changeover switch. After installation of the compressor, the 5th defendant was able to draw more water, the common well began to dry up, and the plaintiffs were unable to irrigate their land properly. Therefore, in the last week of October 2006, the plaintiffs also dug a bore well in their land and installed a compressor. When they attempted to use the changeover switch, the 5th defendant obstructed them. Thereafter, the plaintiffs requested the Electricity Board to install another changeover switch, but the Board refused on the ground that there was no provision to install more than one changeover switch for one service connection. The Board also stated that the service connection stood only in the name of the 5th defendant and advised the plaintiffs to apply for inclusion of their names. The plaintiffs accordingly applied on 07.02.2007, and by letter dated 26.02.2007, they were directed to obtain the consent of the 5th defendant. Since the 5th defendant refused consent, the suit came to be filed.

6. The Electricity Board resisted the suit by contending that, according to their records, Service Connection No. 197 stood only in the name of the 5th defendant. They further stated that the Board permits only one changeover switch for a single connection, and a changeover switch can be given only in favour of the person in whose name the service connection stands. They also stated that the name in the service connect