Judgment :- Aggrieved against the judgment rendered by the Principal District Judge, Salem in A.S.No.230 of 1990 preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the District Munsif, Attur in O.S.No.195 of 1983, the plaintiff/appellant viz., Desia Alagan has filed this second appeal. 2. The question of law raised by the appellant is to the effect that damages arrived by the Electricity Board Officials is not permitted by law and the Electricity Board officials cannot assume theft of electricity energy prior to the inspection for a period of 36 months. 3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff Desia Alagan against the defendants being Electricity Board officials for the relief of declaration that notice dated 25.3.1983 demanding Rs.30,377/= as illegal and ultra vires and consequential permanent injunction with the allegations that the plaintiff is having electric pump set service connection No.321 at the field bearing S.No.70/3 at Appamma Samudram village and the same stands in the name of the plaintiff's grandfather Muthusamy Gounder and that after the oral partition and consequent muchalika between the plaintiff and his father, Rangasamy Gounder in the year 1982, the plaintiff has become the owner of the said service connection and that out of malice, defendants 1 to 3 disconnected the service connection i the year 1979 and however, the plaintiff's father managed to get re-connection after great difficulty and that now, the second defendant issued a notice to the father of the plaintiff once again for the alleged irregularities done in the year 1979 calling for payment of nearly Rs.30,377/= under the threat of disconnection if the amount is not paid within 15 days and that further, the plaintiff is not at all liable to any dues prior to the partition and that the defendants want to harass the plaintiff and make him liable for what he is not liable and that particularly, the plaintiff cannot be held liable for the criminal act done by his father. That is why the plaintiff happened to file the suit. 4. The said suit was resisted by the defendants with the allegations that it is true that the motor pump set service connection No.321 is in S.No.70/3 at Appamma Samudram village and it stands in the name of Muthusamy Gounder and that further, as per the partition and consequent muchalika, the said service connection came to the share of the plaintiff. The said suit was resisted by the defendants with the allegations that it is true that the motor pump set service connection No.321 is in S.No.70/3 at Appamma Samudram village and it stands in the name of Muthusamy Gounder and that further, as per the partition and consequent muchalika, the said service connection came to the share of the plaintiff. It is not correct to say that the demand made by the defendants for Rs.30,377/- by notice dated 25.3.1983 is not without any basis. It is also not correct to say that there is no theft of energy. It is highly belated on the part of the plaintiff to contend as if the said demand made by the defendants is incorrect. Opportunity also has been given to the plaintiff to prefer any appeal against the said demand. The alleged partition between the plaintiff and his father has been set up only for the purpose of filing the suit and avoid the payment of the said amount to the Electricity Board. The plaintiff has also suppressed the material fact that the suit in O.S.No.195 of 1981 filed by the plaintiff's father has been dismissed and in all, the suit altogether is liable to be dismissed. 5. On trial and after examining two witnesses including the plaintiff as PW1 for the plaintiff and three witnesses as D.Ws.1 to 3 for the defendants and marking of 6 documents as Exs.A1 to A6 and four documents as Exs.B1 to B4, the District Munsif, Attur has found and come to the conclusion that the demand notice for payment of Rs.30,377/= is not maintainable and correct and thereby the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs of declaration and injunction and consequently decreed the suit. 6. On appeal, the Principal District Judge, Salem has found and come to the conclusion that the demand made by the defendants cannot be held as unsustainable and consequently the judgment and decree of the District Munsif is unjustified and incorrect and thereby allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. 7. I have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence available for either side in the light of the judgments of both the courts below and the arguments of the counsels appearing for either side in detail. The fact remains that the motor pumpset service connection in question still stands in the name of the plaintiff's grandfather Muthusamy Gounder. 7. I have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence available for either side in the light of the judgments of both the courts below and the arguments of the counsels appearing for either side in detail. The fact remains that the motor pumpset service connection in question still stands in the name of the plaintiff's grandfather Muthusamy Gounder. Further fact remains that already the plaintiff's father has chosen to file a suit against the Electricity Board in O.S.No.195 of 1981 for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction for the purpose of restoring disconnected service connection No.321 and lastly, even though by way of interim order the said Rangasamy Gounder/Ramasamy Gounder was able to get the service connection restored, the said suit was ultimately left to be dismissed for default and non prosecution. Therefore, after dismissal of the suit O.S.No.195 of 1981 filed by the plaintiff's father, the Electricity Board appears to have issued notice for payment of the said amount and the plaintiff, having got present right to use the said service connection No.321 for his motor pumpset, cannot dispute the same as if it is not liable to be paid by him. The plaintiff, who wants to enjoy the said service connection, is not prepared to pay the amount demanded by saying as if he is not liable to pay the amount after partition. 8. In this context, it is to be noted, as pointed out by the Principal District Judge, Salem, that in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the plaint in this case, it has been clearly alleged as "Now the second defendant has issued a notice to the father of the plaintiff once again for the alleged irregularities done in the year 1979 and calling for payment of nearly Rs.30,377/= ... This plaintiff is not liable for any dues prior to the partition ... This plaintiff cannot be held liable for the criminal act done by his father." Therefore, the plaintiff, in one way, is not prepared to pay the amount as if he is not liable after partition and he cannot be made liable for the irregularities and criminal act done by his father in the year 1979 and in another way, he has chosen to contend as if the demand made by the defendants is illegal and ultra vires, etc. 9. 9. Moreover, when once the plaintiff has not specifically disputed the quantum of amount demanded by the defendants following the irregularities committed by his father and when once he has admitted in para 7 that the irregularities and liabilities of his father cannot be fastened upon the plaintiff after partition, it is too much on the part of the plaintiff even now to say as if the demand is illegal and unjustified. It is more so when his father himself was not prepared to pursue his suit in O.S.No.195 of 1981 and it is strange that the plaintiff has filed this suit once again to dispute the amount demanded by the defendants. It is more so when the plaintiff, being the son and legal representative, normally should have pursued the suit in O.S.No.195 of 1981 or atleast to set aside the dismissal of the suit for default and non prosecution. 10. In the above said circumstances and when there is no specific pleading in the plaint as if his father did not commit theft of energy or committed any irregularities, the defendants cannot be expected to prove such irregularities to the satisfaction of the plaintiff. So, it becomes clear that the plaintiff, with the ulterior motive of getting over the problem and liability, appears to have pleaded oral partition and consequent muchalika, etc., and make it appear as if the demand made by the defendants is illegal and unjustified in the pretext of this suit as it is different from the former suit filed by the plaintiff's father. 11. It is also open for the plaintiff to dispute by way of appeal to the Electricity Board upon the quantum of liability instead of harping upon the suit. Therefore, the question of limitation also cannot be invoked by the plaintiff inasmuch as there was earlier proceedings at the instance of the plaintiff's father and it is not explained as to how the period of limitation is computed and as to how the defendants were having occasion to demand and collect dues irrespective of pendency of the earlier suit and this suit. Therefore, taking note of all the above observed important material aspects, I am of the view that there is no illegality in the judgment of the Principal District Judge, Salem in appreciating the evidence either under law or on facts. Therefore, taking note of all the above observed important material aspects, I am of the view that there is no illegality in the judgment of the Principal District Judge, Salem in appreciating the evidence either under law or on facts. Accordingly, the second appeal has no merits in a way inviting this court to interfere with the judgment and decree of the first appellate court viz., the Principal District Judge, Salem. 12. In the result, the second appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs.