Judgment :- Being aggrieved by concurrent findings of Courts below dismissing the suit for permanent injunction, unsuccessful plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction not to disconnect Service Connection S.C.No.6 from the Borewell in Highways Poramboke S.No.43 - 0.01/86. The case of plaintiff is that he and his elder brother fifth defendant Sirai Meetan are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit Service Connection and as elder brother of the family, Service Connection was obtained in the name of fifth defendant. The plaintiff further averred that he had entered into an agreement that his elder brother and fifth defendant under Ex.A2 (dated 211. 1980). Further case of plaintiff is that he applied for name transfer of Service Connection in his name stating that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit Borewell and the Service Connection thereon. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that the Service Connection belongs to him and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants – Tamil Nadu Electricity Board from disconnecting the Service Connection. 3. Resisting the suit, defendants filed Written Statement contending that S.C.No.6 was given to Borewell in S.No.43, which is in Highways Poramboke. Defendants further stated that the Borewell and Service Connection thereon is situated in Highways Poramboke and therefore plaintiff cannot claim right in the suit Borewell and the Service Connection thereon. 4. On the above pleadings, relevant issues were framed. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and also examined another Witness as PW.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A20. On the side of defendants, one witness was examined as DW.1 and no documents were adduced. Upon consideration of evidence, trial Court held that Service Connection stands in the name of fifth defendant and plaintiff had not produced any document showing that he had entered into agreement. Trial Court further held that to prove his right or entitlement, plaintiff has not filed any partition deed or settlement deed or in the absence of any such document, the plaintiff has no legitimate right to claim declaration and permanent injunction. Pointing out location of the Borewell and Service Connection in the Highways Poramboke, trial Court declining permanent injunction and dismissed the suit. 5. Being aggrieved by dismissal of the suit, plaintiff filed A.S.No.3 of 2002. Pointing out location of the Borewell and Service Connection in the Highways Poramboke, trial Court declining permanent injunction and dismissed the suit. 5. Being aggrieved by dismissal of the suit, plaintiff filed A.S.No.3 of 2002. Pointing out that S.C.No.6 stands in the name of fifth defendant, elder brother of plaintiff, lower Appellate Court held that there is no relation of Consumer and Supplier between plaintiff and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Confirming the findings of the trial Court, lower Appellate Court also held that plaintiff has not filed any document to show his entitlement of Service Connection S.C.No.6 and confirming the findings of trial Court, lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. 6. Challenging concurrent findings of the Courts below, plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal. By consent of learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff Mr. M.V.Muralidharan and learned counsel for Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Mr.N.Muthuswamy, even at the time of admission, main Second Appeal itself was taken up for final hearing. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and learned counsel for Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at length. 7. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the following substantial questions of law would arise for consideration in this Second Appeal:- i) Whether the Courts below ought to have come to a conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the property as well as motor pump with electricity connection? (ii) Whether the Courts below rightly dismissed the suit when the defendant No.5 was set exparte and not claimed the suit property? (iii) Whether the Courts below rightly come to a conclusion that the plaintiff have no right in the suit schedule of property? 8. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that no show cause notice was issued by Tamil Nadu Electricity Board before disconnection and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has not produced any such show cause notice for disconnection. Taking me through the Typed Set of Papers, learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff further contended that plaintiff has established his title to the suit property by adverse possession and the Courts below ignored the material evidence that in the oral partition, the plaintiff was given the Borewell and Service Connection. It was mainly argued that Ex.A2 (dated 211. 1980) agreement of sale between plaintiff and fifth defendant was not analysed by Courts below in proper perspective. It was mainly argued that Ex.A2 (dated 211. 1980) agreement of sale between plaintiff and fifth defendant was not analysed by Courts below in proper perspective. It was further argued that Courts below brushed aside the number of documents – Kist Receipts and Adangal – filed by plaintiff (Ex.A4 to Ex.A17), which establish plaintiffs possession and enjoyment in the suit property. It was further argued that in any event, the disconnection effected without show cause notice cannot be sustained and suitable directions must be given for restoration. 9. Pointing out that Borewell and Service Connection S.C.No.6 is in Highways Poramboke, learned counsel for Tamil Nadu Electricity Board submitted that pursuant to requisition from Highways Department, Thittagudi, to remove the encroachment, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board proceeded to disconnect the Service Connection and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board cannot be faulted. It was mainly argued that the plaintiff is in encroachment in Highways Poramboke, Thittagudi and while so plaintiff has no right in Borewell and Service Connection and he cannot seek for discretionary relief of permanent injunction. Learned counsel would further submit that concurrent findings recorded by Courts below is based on evidence and the same cannot be interfered with. 10. Admittedly the suit property - Borewell in S.No.43 -0.01/1.86 and Service Connection S.C.No.6 is in Highways Poramboke. In the said Borewell, appellant/plaintiff has installed 15H.P. Electric Motor Pumpset for which he has obtained Service Connection in S.C.No.6. The plaintiff claims right in the Borewell and the Service Connection by virtue of agreement Ex.A2 dated 211. 1980. Courts below recorded concurrent findings that the plaintiff cannot claim right to Service Connection by virtue of Ex.A2, unregistered agreement. 11. Admittedly, Service Connection is in the name of plaintiffs elder brother D5-Sirai Meetan. The plaintiff has stated that he has filed application in the year 1982 for effecting name transfer of Service Connection. Further as held by the Courts below, plaintiff had not produced any document to show that he had made application to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to effect name change of Service Connection, nor any notice was sent to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to effect name transfer. In the absence of name transfer effected for suit Service Connection, plaintiff cannot claim any right muchless right seeking permanent injunction. As held by the lower Appellate Court, there is no Consumer - Supplier relationship between plaintiff and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. In the absence of name transfer effected for suit Service Connection, plaintiff cannot claim any right muchless right seeking permanent injunction. As held by the lower Appellate Court, there is no Consumer - Supplier relationship between plaintiff and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Learned counsel for respondent/ Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has produced the certificate issued by Village Administrative Officer, Pothiramangalam (East) which is to the effect that S.C.No.6 is in Avinangudi to Aadhamangalam Road Highways Poramboke S.No.43 and the same is under the control of Highways Department. From the certificate of Village Administrative Officer, it is clear that for about 150 feet surrounding S.C.No.6, there are no lands in the name of Sirai Meetan. Learned counsel for respondents / Tamil Nadu Electricity Board submitted that Highways Department has sent requisition to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tittakudi, to facilitate the removal of encroachment, to disconnect Service Connection S.C.No.6. It was further submitted that only pursuant to such requisition, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has disconnected the Service Connection and the respondents cannot be faulted. 12. Admittedly, the plaintiff is an encroacher in Highways Poramboke. To show that he is cultivating the property, the plaintiff has produced Adangal (Exs.A5 to A17). As rightly held by the trial Court without impleading lawful owner -the Government, based on Adangals, the plaintiff cannot seek any relief. The Government was not impleaded in the suit. Without impleading the Government, the plaintiff cannot seek for declaration and permanent injunction. 13. On instructions, learned counsel for respondents/ Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has also submitted that the plaintiff has filed W.P.No.48176 of 2006 and W.P.No.16004 of 2007 challenging disconnection and seeking restoration of Service Connection and the said Writ Petition came to be dismissed. Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiff is an encroacher and the Service Connection S.C.No.6 is in Highways Poramboke. Upon analysis of evidence and materials the Courts below rightly declined the discretionary relief of permanent injunction. No substantial grounds are made out warranting interference in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 14. The judgment of the lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.3 of 2002 dated 31.07.2003 arising out of the judgment in O.S.No.602 of 1996 dated 211. 2000 is confirmed and this Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.