Mr. K.C. Puri, J.: - Legal heirs of plaintiff Gurnam Singh have challenged the judgment dated 10.12.2008 passed by Ms. Sukhwinder Kaur, Additional District Judge, Patiala vide which the appeal preferred by them against the judgment and decree dated 9.10.2007 passed by Shri S.S.Panesar, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, was dismissed.

2. Gurnam Singh filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction with the allegation that he is owner in possession of tube-well motor connection bearing Account No.BH-8/26 of 10H.P. installed previously in Khasra No.12 now in Khasra No.11 of Rectangle No.14 situated in village Sampurangarh tehsil and District Patiala. It is alleged that plaintiff and defendant No.1 were co-sharers in Khewat No.39 Khatauni No.91 situated in village Sampurangarh Tehsil and District Patiala but actually the land has already been partitioned between the cosharers and every cosharer is in exclusive possession of the land as per their share. The plaintiff is in possession of his land including khasra No.11 Rectangle No.14. Previously, motor connection along with tube well was installed/running in Khasra No.12 of Rect.No.14. The same is now running in Khasra No.14/11 and said tube-well motor connection fell to the share of the plaintiff in the said family partition and the plaintiff has been using the same for the last 30 years and depositing the electricity bills with the Electricity Board since the same are exempted by the Government. The receipts and pass book are in his possession. Another tube-well motor connection running the electric motor has fallen to the share of defendant No.1 and he is using the same. Earlier said motor connection was of 7.5 HP and the plaintiff got the load extended to 10 HP by depositing the amount with defendant Nos.2 and 3. Plaintiff remained in good faith that defendant No.1 will get the motor connection transferred as defendant No.2 assured to get the same transferred in the name of plaintiff but he refused to do so. Hence the suit.

3. On notice, defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing separate written statements. Defendant No.1 pleaded that suit land is still joint amongst the cosharers as is evident from the entries of jamabandi for the year 1997-98 which has got the presumption of truth and the same is not challenged even in the present suit. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as cosharer and not exclusive owner. The motor connection along with tube well were installed in the land being run by the contested defendants which was purchased by him and plaintiff was nothing to do with the same. The entire expenses of installation of the tube well and motor connection were borne by the contesting defendants and the bills/receipts of the firm and electricity department are in the name of the replying defendant. The story of family partition of joint and parties is mere concoction and baseless. There is no question of falling tube-well in dispute in the share of plaintiff when no partition has taken place. The load of the motor connection was got increased at the cost and expenses of the replying defendant from 7.5 to 10 H.P. The plaintiff did not incur any amount for extending the load of disputed electric tube-well connection. The defendant got shifted the connection in another Khasra No.4/23 comprising khewat/khata No.49248 situated at village Budhmor. The shifting charges worth Rs.12,932/- were paid by the answering defendant vide receipt dated 12.6.2002 and 9.8.2002. The other averments made in the plaint were denied.

4. Electricity Board filed separate written statement in which it is mentioned that electric connection has been transferred as per rules after compliance of all the formalities. The other allegations of the plaint were denied.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of electric connection in dispute ?OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitle