Madras High Court
T.R.Loganathan vs C.Ramalingam on 4 June, 2025
S.A.No.573 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
S.A.No.573 of 2011
and M.P.No.1 of 2011
1.T.R.Loganathan
2.T.R.Muthusamy (Died)
3.Rasayammal
4.Janaki
5.Santhosh
(A2 died, A3 to A5 are brought on
record as LRs of the deceased
2nd appellant vide Court Order
dated 18.10.2024 made in
C.M.P.Nos.23054, 23057 & 23059 of 2024
in S.A.No.573 of 2011) … Appellants / Defendants
vs.
1.C.Ramalingam
2.R.Kuppuraj … Respondents / Plaintiffs
PRAYER: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C.,
against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2010 passed in A.S.No.55 of
2010 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Erode, reversing the Judgment and
Decree passed in O.S.No.66 of 2008 on the file of District Munsif-cum-
Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi dated 14.12.2009.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Regunathan
for M/s.S.Dhanasekaran
For Respondents : Mr.D.Jagajothi
for M/s.Muthukumarasamy
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:50:36 pm )
S.A.No.573 of 2011
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants against
the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2010 passed by the Principal Sub-
Court, Erode in A.S.No.55 of 2010.
2. Parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and
ranking before the trial Court.
3. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties are situated at
Punjaikolanalli Village, Erode Taluk. 1st plaintiffs' father, Chinnappa
Gounder and defendants' father, Ramasamy Gounder are brothers. The
plaintiffs and the defendants are the co-sharers of the suit well as well as
the suit electricity service connection No.S.C.429 / Pudur S.S.III. The suit
properties are Undivided Hindu Joint Family properties of plaintiffs and the
defendants. The plaintiffs got the properties in Punjaikolanalli Village in
R.S.No.584/3 to an extent of half share in Hectare 0.89.5. After the death
of the said Chinnappa Gounder and Ramasamy Gounder, the plaintiffs
and the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit
properties. The plaintiffs and the defendants had applied for electricity
service connection to the suit well in the name of 2nd defendant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:50:36 pm )
T.R.Muthusamy, S/o.Ramasamy Gounder for 5 HP electricity service
connection by contributing equal shares of expenditure to the Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board.
4. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board sanctioned 5HP agricultural service connection to the suit well. They
installed 5HP electric motor pump set in the suit well and the service
connection is S.C.No.429, Pudur SS-III in the year 1993; since then, the
plaintiffs and the defendants have been using the electric motor and pump-
set commonly by way of turn system. The plaintiffs are jointly entitled to 2
days out of 4 days and the defendants are jointly entitled to 2 days out of 4
days. Enmity arose between the plaintiffs and the defendants in a temple
festival and due to the same, the defendants on 27.05.2008 attempted to
prevent the plaintiffs from taking water from the suit well through suit
electric motor. Hence, the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled
to half share in the suit well as well as electric motor pump-set in the
service connection No.429, Pudur SS-III and for consequential permanent
injunction.
5. The land in R.S.No.584/3 of Punjaikolanalli Village and other
properties were orally divided between the father of the 1st plaintiff and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:50:36 pm )
defendants, in the first week of June, 1980. Under the said partition,
eastern portion of R.S.No.584/3 was allotted to the father of the 1st plaintiff
and the western portion of R.S.No.584/3 was allotted for the defendants
herein. It was reduced to a partition deed dated 05.04.2005. The
defendants made several improvements in the property allotted to them,
they planted coconut samplings in their lands. The defendants mortgaged
the portions allotted to them with Bank and obtained loan. Therefore, the
allocation of the land to the plaintiff in R.S.No.584/3 is in joint possession
and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the defendants' statements are utter
false.
6. The defendants rather would contend that after the partition took
place in the year 1980, the father of the 1st plaintiff and the defendants
installed two separate oil engines for pumping out water from the suit well.
In the year 1984, 1st defendant applied for a separate 5HP electricity
service connection in respect of the suit well to the Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board. For which, the father of the 1st plaintiff gave no objection. The 5HP
electric service connection to the suit well was sanctioned in the name of
the 1st defendant and a separate electric motor was installed by him in the
year 1993. The plaintiffs did not contribute any amount either to the Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board or for the cost of electric motor. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:50:36 pm )
plaintiffs have no manner of right, title or entitlement over the suit service
connection. The plaintiffs removed their oil engine at the time of filing the
suit and took the Advocate Commissioner to the suit well showing that
there is no other mode of irrigation available to them.
7. Based on the rival pleadings, following issues are framed by the
trial Court:
(i) Whether the suit electricity service connection exclusively
belongs to the defendants?
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the declaration relief?
(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent
injunction?
(iv) To what other reliefs, the plaintiffs are entitled to?
8. At trial, to substantiate the plaint details, on the side of the
plaintiffs, three witnesses were examined and fifteen documents were
marked. Ex.A15 is the certified copy of the registered partition deed dated
05.04.2005 executed between the defendants No.1 and 2. On the
defendants' side, three witnesses were examined and eight documents
were marked. Three documents were marked in X-series. Exs.C1 and C2
are the report of the Advocate Commissioner and the rough plan.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:50:36 pm )
9. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and after
hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the trial Court concluded
that no document is filed to prove the fact that since 1993, plaintiffs have
been using electric motor and dismissed the suit in entirety.
10. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred appeal before the Principal
Sub-Court, Erode in A.S.No.55 of 2010. Upon perusal of entire case
records and after hearing the arguments advanced on both sides, the First
Appellate Court concluded that based on the joint adangal Exs.A1 to A8,
the contention of the defendants that the total extent of land was
partitioned between the 1st plaintiff's father and defendants' father are
incorrect and by relying upon the evidence of PW2 and the Advocate
Commissioner's report and other evidences, came to the conclusion that
the plaintiffs have got half share in the electric motor and allowed the
appeal by decreeing the suit in entirety. Aggrieved, the defendants have
preferred this Second Appeal before this Court.
11. Heard both sides. The following substantial questions of law
arises for consideration :
Has not the First Appellate Court below
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:50:36 pm )
committed an error of law in not holding that in the
absence of any document in favour of plaintiffs claiming
declaration and permanent injunction regarding electric
service connection and pump set?
12. The fact that first plaintiff's father Chinnappa Gounder and
defendants' father Ramasamy Gounder are brothers, they jointly owned
dry lands at Kolanalli Village in R.S.No.584/3 to an extent of Hectare
0.89.5 with a well and so also both had half share are not in dispute. In
order to obtain electricity service connection, an application - Ex.X1 dated
12.10.1984 was given by the 1st defendant to the Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board office and the service connection in the name of 1st defendant has
been given in the year 1993 in S.C.No.429. DW2 is the Assistant Engineer
of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. From his evidence, it is deducible that in
the year 1984, application was given by the 1st respondent and the 1st
plaintiff's father has given no objection for grant of electricity connection. It
is his candid evidence that the electricity service connection was applied
for the entire 0.89.5 Hectare land. As pleaded by the defendants had it
been true which means, had the partition taken place in the year 1980
itself, the 1st defendant should have mentioned half share of 0.89.5
Hectares. Even in the copy of re-settlement register extract in the year
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:50:36 pm )
1992, the name of 1st plaintiff's father Chinnappa Gounder and the
defendants father Ramasamy Gounder's name have been mentioned,
coupled with Ex.A8 patta, names of both brothers Chinnappa Gounder and
Ramasamy Gounder are found.
13. Plaintiffs' candid case is that 1st plaintiff's father Chinnappa
Gounder and defendants' father Ramasamy Gounder have equal share in
the well as well as in the service connection with 5 HP electric motor.
Whereas, DW1 would state that both brothers have orally partitioned the
lands equally in the year 1980 itself. As per Sections 101 and 102 of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 one who pleads to prove. But, the above said
documents invariably strongly indicate the fact that the properties are not
partitioned and stand in the name of both brothers, thereby, the
defendants plea as mentioned supra was not substantiated at all.
Advocate Commissioner's report with rough plan indicates the fact that
there is only one water channel is available from the well which means a
common water channel has been in use by both the plaintiffs and the
defendants. A careful perusal of Ex.A15 which is a registered partition
deed executed between the defendants No.1 and 2 on 05.04.2005 also
reads that the defendants 1 and 2 have 1/4 share each in the well. There
is no whisper about the electricity service connection and 5HP motor. Had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:50:36 pm )
it been true as per the defendants case, they have half share in the
electricity service connection and 5 HP motor, it would have been
mentioned. Absence of the said details in Ex.A14 clearly explicates that
the property was not partitioned between the plaintiffs and the defendants
do have half share each in the well as well as in the electricity service
connection and 5HP motor by turn system.
14. Based on both sides oral evidence and the Exhibits as
mentioned supra along with Advocate Commissioner's report and plan, the
learned First Appellate Court has rightly concluded that the plaintiffs have
half share in the well and the electricity service connection and the 5 HP
motor pumpset by way of turn system. This Court does not find any good
reason to upset the findings of the learned First Appellate Court.
15. For the above said reasons, the substantial question of law is
answered in favour of the plaintiffs.
16. Based on the aforesaid observations and discussions, this
second appeal stands dismissed. Sequel to this, the Judgment and
decree dated 16.11.2010 passed by the Principal Subordinate Court,
Erode in A.S.No.55 of 2010 stands confirmed. Considering the relationship
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:50:36 pm )
between the parties to the suit, no cost is ordered throughout.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
ssn
To:
1. The Principal Sub-Court, Erode.
2. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi.
3. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
R.KALAIMATHI, J.,
ssn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:50:36 pm )
and
04.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:50:36 pm )
