Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Superintending Engineer vs Sellachi
2021 Latest Caselaw 20122 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 20122 Mad
Judgement Date : 30 September, 2021

Madras High Court
Superintending Engineer vs Sellachi on 30 September, 2021
                                                                             S.A.(MD)No.1157 of 2006

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                  DATED: 30.09.2021

                                                       CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                              S.A.(MD)No.1157 of 2006


                   1.Superintending Engineer
                    Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
                     Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

                   2.Junior Engineer,
                     Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
                     Eraviputhurkadai,
                     Viyanur Village,
                     Kalkulam Vattam,
                     Kanyakumari District.       ... Defendants 1 & 2/ Respondents 1 & 2/
                                                                    Appellants



                                                       -Vs-


                   1.Sellachi
                   2.Jaytheeswari
                   3.Bubalasan
                   4.Jayabalasan                 ... Plaintiffs / Appellants / Respondents
                   5.Chelladurai
                   6.Lalithabai   ... Defendants 4 & 5 / Respondent 3 & 4 / Respondents
                   PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
                   Code, against the judgment and decree          made in A.S.No.9 of 2004 dated
                   16.06.2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Padmanabapuram, reversing the
                   judgment        and   decree   of   the    Principal   District   Munsif   Court,
                   Padmanabapuram in O.S.No.246 of 1996, dated 02.12.2003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/


                   1/4
                                                                                   S.A.(MD)No.1157 of 2006



                                              For Appellants        : Mrs.Parameswari
                                                                      for Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha
                                              For Respondents      : no appearance


                                                           JUDGMENT

The defendants in O.S.No.246 of 1996 on the file of the Principal

District Munsif Court, Padmanabapuram are the appellants herein. The

respondents herein filed the said suit for restraining the appellants herein

from putting up any electric pole or drawing lines on the suit property. The

trial court by judgment and decree dated 02.12.2003 dismissed the suit.

Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed A.S.No.9 of 2004 on the file of

the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram. The first appellate court set aside the

decision of the trial court and also allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.

Challenging the same, this second appeal came to be filed.

2.The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial

questions of law:-

(1) Whether in law the judgment of the appellate judge in allowing the appeal is sustainable without any finding for possession and right of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, since the trial court has categorically held in Issue No.3 as the plaintiff has not proved his possession and right over the schedule mentioned property?

2. Whether in law the judgment of the appellate judge is sustainable when the Board has power to erect poles under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910?

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A.(MD)No.1157 of 2006

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 17.09.2021, there

was no representation on the side of the respondents. The matter was

adjourned to 20.09.2021 and thereafter to 30.09.2021. Even today, there is

no representation on the side of the respondents. The learned counsel

appearing for the appellants would point out that the suit was infructuous at

the very inception. Even before filing of the suit, the appellants had already

installed electric poles and also drawn the lines. Lines have also been

energized. It is further stated that the poles were installed only on the road

margin and not on the plaintiffs' patta land. In any event, the statutory

power of the appellants to install electric poles and draw electric lines even

over the private lands cannot be challenged. When the plaintiffs claimed

that poles have been erected on their patta lands, it is incumbent on them to

prove the title over the site on which the poles have been erected. No such

evidence has been adduced.

4. The courts below have not taken note of this aspect. Therefore, the

substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellants. The

impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is set

aside. The second appeal is allowed. No costs.

30.09.2021

Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No rmi https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A.(MD)No.1157 of 2006

G.R.SWAMINATHAN.J.,

rmi

To

1.The Sub Court, Padmanabapuram.

2.The Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabapuram.

Copy To The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Judgment made in S.A.(MD)No.1157 of 2006

30.09.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter