Judgment : 1. This second appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Villupuram in A.S.No. 14 of 1984, dated 30.7.1985, reversing that of the learned District Munsif, Villupuram in O.S.No. 209 of 1982, dated 2. 1984. 2. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in this Second Appeal. .3. The plaintiff contended that the suit item is Service Connection No.23 of Purushanoor Village and the second defendant was the original owner, that in or about 1970, the second defendant sold the land and left for some other village and he did not sell the suit service. The second defendant removed the electric motor and installed in another village, after obtaining fresh service connection in his name. The first defendant caused dis-connection notice for non-payment of the current consumption charges in the year 1974 and that the first defendant sent a reminder to the second defendant. At that time, the second defendant approached the plaintiff and his brother and offered to sell the suit service connection to the plaintiff and his brother. The plaintiff further pleaded that he and his brother purchased the service connection for a sum of Rs. 1,500 in 1975 and paid all the arrears of current consumption charges and also re-connection charges and the plaintiff was using the service connection as the absolute owner. The first defendant was also consulted before paying the re-connection charges and the first defendant suggested that the suit item may be transferred to the name of the plaintiff, with the consent of the second defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff and his brother, along with second defendant, gave a joint application for name transfer and the same was pending. Whileso, on 19. 1981, the first defendant sent memo to the plaintiff and his brother, to rectify some defects in the application for name transfer. Subsequently the first defendant refused to give service connection to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, there was no legal difficulty in effecting the name transfer to the plaintiff and the refusal on the part of the first defendant was not justified. 4. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board -the first defendant, in its written statement contended that the second defendant had paid the entire arrears plus re-connection charges and got the service connection. 4. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board -the first defendant, in its written statement contended that the second defendant had paid the entire arrears plus re-connection charges and got the service connection. The first defendant was not aware that the plaintiff was using the electric motor from the date of re-connection and it was not correct to say that the Electricity Board had advised the plaintiff to get the consent letter from the second defendant, for the alleged name transfer. It is true that an application for name transfer was received by the Electricity Board from the plaintiff, without any Title Deed and in the mean time, the second defendant gave an application for shifting the service connection and further, the second defendant also stated that he had never consented for the name transfer. Thus, as there was dispute between the parties, it was not possible for the first defendant to effect any name transfer, without the Title Deed of the plaintiff. .5. In the written statement of the second defendant, who is claimed to be the owner of the service connection, he stated that as the water in the well had dried-up, he sold away the property and he applied for permission of the first defendant to shift the service connection to his another land and he also made the requisite deposit of Rs. 721.35 ps on 12. 1981. The first defendant in fact, ordered the shifting of service connection. The claim of the plaintiff that the second defendant approached the plaintiff and his brother and offered to sell the suit service connection to them and received the amount from the plaintiff and agreed for the name transfer, was denied by the second defendant. The second defendant claimed that he is an illiterate person and by making false representations, the plaintiff appears to have obtained the signature of the second defendant, in the printed form. 6. On consideration of the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. However, on appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, Villupuram reversed the findings of the trial Court only on the ground that mere service connection alone cannot be sold or transferred and the service connection being only a licence given by the Electricity Board to use the current, it cannot be transferred independent of the land. However, on appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, Villupuram reversed the findings of the trial Court only on the ground that mere service connection alone cannot be sold or transferred and the service connection being only a licence given by the Electricity Board to use the current, it cannot be transferred independent of the land. With the result, the appeal was allowed and hence this Second appeal. 7. Having regard to the findings of the appellate Court, the only issue that arises for consideration is, as to whether the service connection alone can be subjected to any transfer or sale by a person, who holds service connection? 8. In this context, it is relevant to note paragraph No. 23 of the “Terms and conditions of supply of electricity" issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, which reads as follows: "23.00 : Transfer of Service Connection 23.01" Application should be sent for name transfer in case the owner of a service connection is dead or the property is transferred. In all cases of such transfer, the arrears of current consumption charges should be paid in full. 23.02: The transfer of service connection due to death of the owner of the service connection to the heir applying for transfer will be effected, if the appellant produces the following documents to the Board: (i) Death Certificate to the Board; (ii) No Objection Certificate from other legal heirs, if any. (iii) Fresh application and agreement form. 23.03: The transfer due to sale/partition/settlement/gift of the premises will be effected if the applicant produces the following: .(i) Document to support the transfer. .(ii) Consent letter of the previous owner for the transfer of security deposit if it is not included in the document. In case such consent letter cannot be produced, fresh security deposit shall be paid by the applicant. (iii) Fresh application and agreement.23.04 Transfer of service connection from the owner of the premises to the tenant of the premises or vice versa, and from a tenant to a successor tenant of the premises will be considered subject to the provisions in clauses 6.02 to 6.05". 9. A perusal of paragraphs 23.01,23.023. (iii) Fresh application and agreement.23.04 Transfer of service connection from the owner of the premises to the tenant of the premises or vice versa, and from a tenant to a successor tenant of the premises will be considered subject to the provisions in clauses 6.02 to 6.05". 9. A perusal of paragraphs 23.01,23.023. 03, and 23.04 goes to show that the transfer of service connection is contemplated only on the death of the owner or sale partition/settlement gift of the premises by the owner and from the owner of the premises to the tenant of the premises or vice versa and from tenant to a successor tenant of the premises and these alone can be the grounds for effecting transfer of service connection. It is also stated by the learned counsel representing the Electricity Board that there is no other provision, under which, the service connection alone can be transferred to any other person, apart from the categories already mentioned in paragraph No. 23 of the "terms and conditions of supply of electricity issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 10. As against the said positive submission, no material was furnished by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore the findings of the learned appellate Judge cannot be held to be erroneous. In the present case, it is not the case of the appellant-plaintiff that he had purchased the property, for which service connection has been granted. The property belongs to some other person and therefore the refusal on the part of the Electricity Board to transfer the service connection in favour of the plaintiff-appellant cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. 11. In the result, there are no merits in this second appeal and hence the same is dismissed.