Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1247 (MAD)

Manivannan v. Tamilnadu Electricity Board

2012-03-08

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment 1. Petitioner has approached this court, with a prayer for issuance of writ, in the nature of mandamus, infact is seeking a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the 1st respondent from giving electricity connection to the schedule property in the name of 2nd respondent or his nominees. 2. The submission of the petitioner is that the grand father of the petitioner late Valmoorthy had purchased a property measuring 38 cents in S.No.268, No.59, Mogappair village, Ambattur Taluk, thiruvallur district from Roop Narayanan by way of registered sale deed dated 15.02.1960. The grand father of the petitioner with his family was in possession of the property. 3. Grand father of the petitioner died intestate on 20.02.1972. The property, thereafter was inherited by the legal heirs of Thiru Valmoorthy namely father of the petitioner and Mr.Shanmugam, Mrs.Jayalakshmi the grand mother of the petitioner and Mrs.Vijayalakshmi, Pushpalingam, Visvanathan, the other sons and daughters of late Valmoorthy. 4. Petitioner is the son of Mr.Shanmugam, the petitioner and is paying the taxes and also has electricity connection in his name. The property is said to have not been partitioned between the legal heirs of Mr.Valmoorthy and is in the joint possession and enjoyment. 5. Mrs.Jayalakshmi executed a release deed for her share of property in the favour of the father of the petitioner. The uncle of the petitioner Pushpalingam died. The sons and daughters the legal heirs of the uncle of the petitioner also executed release deed in favour of the father of the petitioner. Petitioner further submits that the property is worth more than one crore per ground. 6. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner, that the 3rd respondent forcibly entered the property, but there is no 3rd respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that it is typographical error, as it is the 2nd respondent. This submission on the face of it is wrong and cannot be accepted, as the 2nd respondent is legal person i.e that the company registered under Companies Act it cannot therefore forcibly enter any property. On being questioned as to why wrong pleading are not corrected by following process of Law, the answer is that it can be orally submitted at the time of arguments. 7. The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent, claims to have purchased the property and it has started construction on the suit property. On being questioned as to why wrong pleading are not corrected by following process of Law, the answer is that it can be orally submitted at the time of arguments. 7. The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent, claims to have purchased the property and it has started construction on the suit property. The petitioner filed O.S.No.565 of 2011, in the court of District Munsif at Ambattur for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from raising any construction. 8. The petitioner has reserved his right to file a suit for partition. The case of the petitioner is, that 2nd respondent has no right over the suit matter. However, nothing has been pleaded or disclosed as to why the relief claimed in this writ could not have been claimed in the civil suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner. It is also not disclosed how two parallel proceeding can continue. 9. The submission in the writ is that the 2nd respondent has applied for electricity connection to 1st respondent, where petitioner raised objection against grant of electricity connection in view of pending civil suit in the civil court. The 2nd respondent therefore does not have right to get electric connection to the property till the dispute of title is adjudicated, only the lawful owner, is entitled to get the electricity connection. 10. On the pleadings noted above, the prayer is to issue a writ in nature of prohibition against 1st respondent from granting electricity connection to 2nd respondent. 11. The reading of averment in the affidavit itself show, that no case is made out for grant of injunction as admittedly the civil suit is pending between the parties. 12. The remedy if any with the petitioner was to move application in the pending suit. The petitioner is also not entitled to invoke discretionary equitable, relief under writ jurisdiction, for not having come to court with clean hands, as he concealed the fact that injunction application filed in civil suit stands dismissed. 13. The facts reproduced herein above, also show that there is dispute regarding title to property which cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner is also not entitled to seek prohibition against 1st respondent to restrain it from performing its statutory obligations to deal with applications in accordance with law. 14. The writ petition is totally misconceived. No merits. Dismissed.