Judgment :- 1. This second appeal is focussed by the original defendants, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 112. 2006 passed in A.S.No.12 of 2005 by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Tiruvallur, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, namely, District Munsif Court at Pallipattu, in O.S.No.690 of 2001. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 2. A summation and summarisation of relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus: The plaintiffs/respondents filed the suit O.S.No.690 of 2001 as against the defendants seeking mandatory injunction. The defendants entered appearance and filed the written statement resisting the suit. 3. The trial Court framed the relevant issues. During trial, the first plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of the defendants, one Lakshmanan was examined as D.W.1 and no exhibit was marked. 4. Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit, as against which the appeal was filed, for nothing but to be dismissed by the First Appellate Court, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the judgment and decrees of both the Courts below, this Second Appeal is sought to be filed on various grounds and also by suggesting the following alleged substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the courts below right in finding that since Tamil Nadu Electricity Board received reconnection fee is bound to reconnect the service connection even though the respondent has not produced the relevant documents to prove his ownership as on the date of reconnection of service connection sought for by the respondent which was disconnected on 18.09.1989? 2. Whether the courts below is right in ordering reconnection of the service connection in the absence of any proof produced by the respondent for having produced the documents? 3. Whether courts below misdirected themselves by framing issues not relevant to the case on hand" (extracted as such) 5. Heard both sides. 6. A plain poring over and perusal of the typed set of papers including the copies of the judgments of both the Courts below and also consideration of the arguments on either side would demonstrate and display that the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking mandatory injunction. Heard both sides. 6. A plain poring over and perusal of the typed set of papers including the copies of the judgments of both the Courts below and also consideration of the arguments on either side would demonstrate and display that the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking mandatory injunction. The defendants entered appearance and resisted the suit on the ground that at the time of the plaintiffs seeking restoration of the electricity connection, they did not produce the relevant records justifying their right to seek for reconnection of the electricity supply. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants would develop his argument that the plaintiffs did not produce the relevant documents to prove their ownership over the property concerned as on the date of seeking re-connection. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs would appropriately and appositely, convincingly and correctly advance and set forth his argument that absolutely there is no iota or shred, shard or miniscule, pintsized or scintilla, molecular or jot of evidence to demonstrate and exemplify that there was any rival claim and in the absence of it, the Electricity Board was not at all justified in developing doubts of their own and put the plaintiffs in difficulty. The exhibits marked on the plaintiffs side evince and expatiate, bespeak and betoken that the plaintiffs claim for getting reconnection is a well founded one. 8. In the list of documents appended to the trial Courts judgment, what I could find is that the Death Certificates of Munusamy Reddy, Ganesa Reddy and Damodharan Reddy have been marked as Exs.A1 to A3 respectively. The first plaintiff claims to be the widow and the second plaintiff is the minor daughter of deceased Damodharan Reddy. Ex.A4, the legal heir certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Pallipattu would exemplify that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Damodharan Reddy. I am fully aware of the fact that Ex.A4 is not a conclusive document to prove the legal heirship in a contestable matter. However, for departmental purpose, such as, for getting Electricity connection etc. that could rightly be relied on and that is why the Revenue Department is issuing such certificates. I am fully aware of the fact that Ex.A4 is not a conclusive document to prove the legal heirship in a contestable matter. However, for departmental purpose, such as, for getting Electricity connection etc. that could rightly be relied on and that is why the Revenue Department is issuing such certificates. The Electricity Board even though was not convinced about the plaintiffs claim at the time of seeking reconnection, atleast after the trial Courts judgment could have very well got itself satisfied and complied with the directions of the trial court, but unnecessarily the Electricity Board who is in no way connected with the heir ship of the plaintiffs, preferred appeal and further being not satisfied, preferred the Second Appeal also for nothing but to be dismissed now by this Court. 9. At this juncture, I call up and recollect the following decisions of the Honble Apex Court relating to concept substantial question of law: (i) (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 545 -Hero Vinoth (Minor) Vs. Seshammal, certain excerpts from its would run thus:- "17. After the amendment a second appeal can be filed only if a substantial question of law is involved in the case. The memorandum of appeal must precisely state the substantial question of law involved and the High Court is obliged to satisfy itself regarding the existence of such a question. If satisfied, the High Court has to formulate the substantial question of law involved in the case. . . . . . . ." 18. . . . . . It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherenth right attached to the litigation. Being a substantive statutory right, it has to be regulated in accordance with law in force at the relevant time. ...... 23. To be "substantial" a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. ...... 23. To be "substantial" a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law "involving in the case" there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. (ii) 2008(4) SCALE 300 - Kashmir Singh Vs. Harnam Singh and Another. (iii) 2009-1-L.W.1 - State Bank Of India & Others Vs. S.N.Goyal. Hence I could see no question of law, much less substantial question of law involved in this matter. 10. As pointed out correctly by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, both the Courts below considered the pros and cons of the matter and thereafter, au fait with law and au courant with facts, passed the reasoned judgments warranting no interference. Nothing has been highlighted in what way the Electricity Board would be prejudiced if reconnection is given. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs would also submit that if any more reconnection charges are payable, they are ready to pay it. In such a case, I am of the opinion that the Electricity Board cannot harp upon the same old plea that as on the date of seeking reconnection, necessary documents et al were not produced. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.