Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsels for the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows: The petitioner has stated that he is the owner of a portion of the house, situated at No.37, Rathinamudali Street, Vyasarpadi Chennai. The entire property at No.37, Rathinam Mudali Street, Vyasarpadi, Chennai, was owned by his father, late T.G.Srinivasulu. After his death, on 8.11.1990, several disputes had arisen between the sons and daughters of late T.G.Srinivasulu. 3. In such circumstances, a civil suit in O.S.No.1122 of 2003, had been filed in the XVII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, for partition and for othe rreliefs. The said suit had been dismissed, on 31.7.2007. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the petitioner and his sister, Subadra, had filed an appeal, in A.S.No.213 of 2008, on the file of the V Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. The said appeal had been allowed, allotting one half share to the petitioner and his sister. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in the first appeal, the respondents 3 to 5 had filed a second appeal, before this Court, in S.A.SR.No.35351 of 2011. While so respondents 3 to 5 had disconnected the power and water supply to the portion of the property occupied by the petitioner. 4. In such circumstances, the petitioner had submitted an application before the second respondent, on 5.9.2011, for a new electricity service connection to the portion of the property occupied by the petitioner. Respondents No.3 to 5 had raised their objections before the second respondent, requesting him to reject the application of the petitioner stating that they are co-owners of the property in question. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, the second respondent is directed to grant temporary electricity service connection to the petitioner, as prayed for by him, under Rule 27 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004, after obtaining the necessary indemnity bond from the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the granting of the electricity service connection to the petitioner, by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, will not confer any additional rights or interests in the property in question, said to be in the possession and occupation of the petitioner. The electricity service connection, granted to the petitioner, would be, purely temporary in nature. The writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.