P MEENAKSHISUNNDARAM Vs. ADDITIONAL DIVISONAL ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD CHINGLEPUTTALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 27.11.1996 made in A.S. No. 5 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, chingleput, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.4.1995 made in O.S. 347 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chingleput.

(2.) THE suit arising out of which the present second appeal is filed by the plaintiff for the reliefs of permanent-injunction for restraining the defendants, their men and agents from enforcing the belated claim of Rs. 2,668.80 and from tampering the service connection No. 43, Lattar Village, No. 185, S. No. 142-A/B, Kalpakkam, Chingleput, in whatever manner for non-payment of any amount. THE facts which led to the filing, of the suit are that the suit property was originally belonging to the plaintiff's father and the suit service connection was obtained by the plaintiff's father viz;, D. Pachaiappa Mudaliar for his rice mill. THE plaintiff's father died in the year 1980 and thereafter, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property' on the basis of the family arrangement with his other brothers and by promptly paying the electricity consumption charges, but without changing the connection in his name. While so, the plaintiff was issued with notice dated 14.8.1986 by the second defendant/Electricity Department demanding payment of Rs. 2,668.80 purported to be arrears of consumption charges for the period between August, 1976 and May, 1977 and the plaintiff was asked to pay the same in five installments between August and December, 1986 and the plaintiff was issued with second notice dated 25.8.1986, failing which threatened disconnection of service connection for non -payment of the arrears along with payment of surcharge on the outstanding, and therefore, the plaintiff came forward with the suit for the relief of permanent injunction from enforcing the belated claim mainly on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.

(3.) THE contesting parties have in support of their respective contentions before the trial Court examined the plaintiff and the Account Manager of the Electricity Board, Sengai as P.W.1 and D.W.1 respectively and have produced Exhibits A-1 to A-6 and B-1 to B-5 documents on both sides.