ULIVEERAN Vs. KALIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal, challenge is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 21.02.2003 passed in A.S.No.210 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Coimbatore, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 31.03.2000 passed in O.S.No.94 of 1996 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.

(2.) The suit in O.S.No.94 of 1996 has been laid by the deceased Ranga Gowder, (since deceased) father of the plaintiffs 3 to 5 and the defendants 1, 3 and 4 restraining the second defendant electricity board from effecting service connection in the name of the first defendant and it is found that the abovesaid relief sought for, had been subsequently amended for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the second defendant to disconnect the electricity connection given to the first defendant.

(3.) Alleging that the properties involved in the matter are the joint family properties belonging to the abovesaid members of the family and not yet divided and contending that without any authority, the first defendant is attempting to obtain the service connection, in respect of the house structure said to have been put up by him, from the second defendant and accordingly, seeking the relief of permanent injunction, it is found that the abovesaid suit has come to be laid. The first defendant has taken the plea, in brief, that the properties belonging to the family, consisting of the abovesaid members, had been already divided in the presence of the panchayatars and the mediators and according to him, in that connection, the muchalika had been executed on 25.07.1979 and accordingly, it is the case of the first defendant that the members of the family had been put in the separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares and accordingly, enjoying the same and thus, it is the further case of the first defendant, that following the same, he had constructed a residential building out of his own funds in the share allotted to him and the said house construction had been assessed to municipal tax and accordingly, seeking to obtain the service connection to the abovesaid house, it is stated by the first defendant that he had requested the electricity board, the second defendant, to effect the service connection by producing the necessary records as regards the ownership of the abovesaid property from the concerned authorities and accordingly, based on the abovesaid records, it is stated that inasmuch as the order of interim injunction obtained by the plaintiffs had ceased to operate on the dismissal of the suit for default at one stage of the matter, accordingly, it is seen that based on the records placed by the first defendant, the second defendant electricity board had effected the service connection to the house of the first defendant and accordingly, as abovestated, the plaintiffs had amended the relief into the relief of mandatory injunction for a direction to the electricity board to disconnect the service connection effected in favour of the first defendant.