Standing Counsel COMMON JUDGEMENT These Second Appeals have been preferred against the common judgement and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.41 of 2012 and A.S.No.37 of 2013 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Dharmapuri, dated 27.02.2015.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to as “plaintiffs” and “defendants” as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. Before the Trial Court, the appellants in both second appeals, had filed the suit in O.S.No.72 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palacode, seeking the relief of declaration, declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to ½ share in the Well, electric motor and Electricity Service Connection No.29, and for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with or disturbing the rights of the plaintiffs to draw water from the suit Well, during their turn, and also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 4 from transferring Electricity Service Connection No.29 in favour of the first defendant, without consent of the plaintiffs, and also prayed for costs. 3.1 The Trial Court, decreed the suit in part, declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to ½ share in the suit properties and granted a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' turn in drawing water, and declined to grant the relief sought against defendants 2 to 4 regarding the transfer of Electricity Service Connection No.29 without consent of the plaintiffs.

3.2 Aggrieved by the said judgement and decree, the plaintiffs in the suit preferred an appeal in A.S.No.37 of 2013, and the first defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.41 of 2012 before the Sub-Court, Dharmapuri. The First Appellate Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal in A.S.No.37 of 2013, and allowed the appeal in A.S.No.41 of 2012, by setting aside the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.72 of 2006, and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.72 of 2006. Aggrieved by the said common judgement and decree, the plaintiffs/

appellants have filed these two Second Appeals before this Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

(i) The first plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers, and are sons of one Somu Gounder. The suit properties are common properties of the first plaintiff and the first defendant. Originally, the Electricity Service Connection No.29 stood in the name of father of the first plaintiff and the first defendant. The first plaintiff, the first defendant, and their father entered into a registered partition deed dated 14.12.2001, under which the suit Well and Electricity Service Connection No.29 with a 10 H.P., motor (Horse Power), were jointly allotted to the first plaintiff and the first defendant.

(ii) After the partition, both parties were taking water from the said Well through the said service connection on a turn-system basis. Subsequently, due to some misunderstandings, both the first plaintiff and the first defendant claimed exclusive rights over the Electricity Service Connection No.29. The first defendant attempted to take possession of the said service connection with the help of defendants 2 to 4, and the same was objected to by the plaintiffs, and thereby misunderstandings arose between the plaintiffs and the first defendant. Though the defendants 2 to 4 have no right over the property, they have also included as parties to the suit. The first defendant attempted to prevent the plaintiffs from taking water from the Well through the Service Connection No.29 and also made efforts to transfer the said service connection and motor to another place.

Hence, the plaintiffs filed the present suit.

5. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the first defendant are as follows:-

i) The suit is not maintainable and the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the allegations levelled against the first defendant. The description of the properti