Judgment

Mr. Namit Kumar, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2013 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, whereby suit filed by plaintiff-Santokh Singh for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed as well as against the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2015 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2013, has been dismissed.

2. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the civil suit. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-Santokh Singh filed a suit for declaration that he is actual consumer, holder and owner of tubewell connection bearing No.B-412 of 5BHP installed in khasra No.10R/13/1/1, khewat/khatauni No.447/1143 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring or shifting the connection in question or disconnecting the tubewell connection illegally and forcibly. It was pleaded that tube-well in question was installed in the name of Amrik Singh brother of the plaintiff for cultivation of joint holding of land since long. However, later on in family partition tube-well connection in dispute fell to the share of the plaintiff vide agreement dated 21.11.1996. Amrik Singh also authorized the plaintiff to get the connection transferred in his name. Since then it is the plaintiff, who is actual consumer and holder of tube-well connection in dispute. Said Amrik Singh has expired and is represented by defendants. Now defendants are threatening to shift or interfere in his possession over the tube-well connection in question, of which they have no right. Plaintiff requested them not to do so, but they refused, hence the suit was filed.

3. Upon notice, defendants No.1 to 6 appeared and filed written statement admitting relationship between the parties but denying the execution of any agreement dated 21.11.1996. According to them no partition as alleged has ever taken place between the parties and that after the death of Amrik Singh, defendants are actual consumers, holders and owners of the tube-well connection in question.

4. Defendants no. 7 and 8 in their written statement have also denied the existence of any agreement dated 21.11.1996. According to them no application for change of name of electric connection in question has been moved before the Electricity Board and that electric connection is still in the name of Amrik Singh. It had been prayed that suit be dismissed.

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

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable? OPP

4. Relief.

6. Both the parties led documentary as well as oral evidence to prove these issues.

7. After hearing arguments and after appreciating evidence on record, trial Court dismissed the suit of plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 30.08.2023.

8. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, plaintiff-appellants preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 05.03.2013.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below suffer from perversity as they are based upon mis-interpretation of the evidence on record. He further contended that the Courts below failed to appreciate that as per agreement Ex.P1 Amrik Singh predecessor