JUDGMENT 1. These two second appeals are focussed by the plaintiff, inveighing the judgments and decrees dated 31.8.2009 passed in A.S. Nos. 23 of 2008 and 16 of 2008 respectively by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram in confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Chidambaram in O.S. No. 242 of 2006. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely germane for the disposal of these two second appeals would run thus: a) The warp and woof of the averments in the plaint could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: The respondent Electricity Board on 18.3.2006 at the instigation of the local Panchayat Board president, who had animosity and enmity, antipathy and abomination, detest and dislike as against the plaintiff caused the officials of the Electricity Board to make the electricity over-head line to pass aerially across the house of the plaintiff. Despite objections raised by the plaintiff, there was no positive response from them. Hence the suit seeking the following reliefs: To pass a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the poles and the electrical power supply over head lines erected and drawn over the suit property to pass a decree for Rs. 10,000/- as damages for the mental agony and distress cased to the plaintiff by the illegal and unlawful conduct of the defendants and for costs. (extracted as such) b) In a bid to torpedo the averments in the plaint, D1 filed the written statement, which was adopted by the other defendants. On 20.3.2006, no such High Tension electric over headline was taken over the property of the plaintiff. No new electricity pole was fixed as alleged. The overhead line wires alone were changed. The electricity board has got the power to take over head electricity line across the property of even the plaintiff. Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit. c) Issues were set down by the trial court for trial, during which, on the plaintiff’s side, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exhibits A-1 to A9 were marked. On the defendants’ side, D.W.1 was examined and Exhibits B-1 to B3 were marked. Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit. c) Issues were set down by the trial court for trial, during which, on the plaintiff’s side, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exhibits A-1 to A9 were marked. On the defendants’ side, D.W.1 was examined and Exhibits B-1 to B3 were marked. d) Ultimately, the trial court decreed the suit granting mandatory injunction as prayed for as against the defendants. However, the claim for damages was dismissed. As against the dismissal of the claim for damages, the plaintiff preferred the appeal in A.S. No. 16 of 2008 and the defendants preferred the appeal in A.S. No. 23 of 2008 challenging and impugning the mandatory injunction granted against them. e) By separate judgments, the first appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the Electricity Board and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff claiming damages. f) Challenging and impugning the two judgments and decrees of the first appellate court, these two second appeals have been focused by the plaintiff on various grounds and also suggesting various substantial questions of law. g) My learned predecessor formulated the following substantial questions of law at the time of admitting the second appeals. (substantial question of law No. 1 in S.A. No. 936 of 2010) Whether the lower appellate court erred in law in negativing the relief of mandatory injunction after having held that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff? (substantial question of law No. 1 in S.A. No. 937 of 2010) When the defendants admittedly have put up poles and drawn overhead High Tension lines over the suit property whether the lower appellate court erred in law negativing the relief of compensation after having held that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff? and the following one and the same substantial question of law Nos. 2 to 6 in both the second appeals. (ii) Whether the lower appellate court erred in law in not drawing adverse inference against the defendants for not producing any sanctioned scheme under which electric poles were erected in the suit property? (iii) Whether the lower appellate court erred in law in not placing reliance upon the decision of the Full Bench Kerala High Court and in AIR 1972 KER 47 ? (iii) Whether the lower appellate court erred in law in not placing reliance upon the decision of the Full Bench Kerala High Court and in AIR 1972 KER 47 ? (iv) Whether the lower appellate court erred in law in holding that the plaintiff/owner of the suit property is not entitled to any prior notice for putting up poles in the property for drawing overhead lines? (v) Whether the lower appellate court erred in law in driving the plaintiff to file another suit for compensation when one of the reliefs sought for in the suit is for the same? (vi) Whether the lower appellate court misconstrued and misappreciated the evidence on record? (extracted as such) 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would pyramid his argument, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: The first appellate court ignoring the relevant provisions of law, but wrongly taking a cue from the decisions referred to in his judgment, simply dismissed the entire original suit of the plaintiff, warranting interference in this second appeal. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants in a bid to make mincemeat of the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the plaintiff would submit his argument, the epitome and the long and the short of it would run thus: The Electricity Supply Act and the telegraphic Act amply empowers and enables the Electricity Board to take the over headline even over the houses of private persons and the first appellate court correctly decided the lis warranting no interference in these second appeals. 7. At the outset itself, I would like to fumigate my mind with the following provisions of the law: Section 12 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (Central Act No. IX of 1910)along with Rule 27 (6) (the Terms and Conditions for supply of electricity) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 is extracted here under for ready reference: Section 12 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 “12. Provisions as to the opening and breaking up of streets, railways and tramways – (1) .......... Provisions as to the opening and breaking up of streets, railways and tramways – (1) .......... (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to authorise or empower a licensee, without the consent of the local authority or of the owner or occupier concerned, as the case may be, lay down or place any electric supply-line, or other work in, through or against any building, or on, over or under any land not dedicated to public use whereon, wherever or whereunder any electric supply line or work has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee: Provided that any support of an over head line or any stay or strut required for the sold purpose or securing in position any support of an over head line may be fixed on any building or land or, having been so fixed, may be altered, notwithstanding the objection of the owner or occupier of such building or land, if the District Magistrate or, in a Presidency-town, the Commissioner of Police by order in writing so directs: Provided also, that, if at any time the owner or occupier of any building or land on which any such support, stay or strut has been fixed shows sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or, in a Presidency-town, the Commissioner of Police may by order in writing direct any such support, stay or strut to be removed or altered. 27. Requisitions for supply of energy – (1) ........ (2) ......... (3) ....... (4) ....... (5)...... (6) Where the intending consumer’s premises has no frontage on a street and the supply line from the licensee’s mains has to go upon, over or under the adjoining premises of any other person (whether or not the adjoining premises is owned jointly by the intending consumer and such other person), the intending consumer shall arrange at /her own expense for any necessary way leave, licence or sanction before the supply is effected. Even when the frontage is available, but objections are raised for laying lines/cables/poles through a route proposed by the licensee involving minimum cost and in accordance with the technical norms, to extend supply to the intending consumer, the intending consumer shall arrange at his/her own expense necessary way leave, licence or sanction before the supply is effected. Even when the frontage is available, but objections are raised for laying lines/cables/poles through a route proposed by the licensee involving minimum cost and in accordance with the technical norms, to extend supply to the intending consumer, the intending consumer shall arrange at his/her own expense necessary way leave, licence or sanction before the supply is effected. Any extra expense to be incurred by the licensee in placing the supply line in accordance with the terms of the way leave, licence or sanction shall be borne by the intending consumer. In the event of way-leave, licence or sanction being cancelled or withdrawn, the intending consumer shall at his/her own cost arrange for any diversion of the service-line or the provision of any new service line thus rendered necessary.” (emphasis supplied) A cumulative reading of those provisions would unambiguously and unequivocally, display and proclaim that the Electricity Board has got no right to take any over head electricity line aerially across the private house of any individual. 8. Ignoring this express and plain, clear and pellucid provisions of law, the first appellate court decided the lis warranting interference in second appeal. 9. The following decisions, (i) E.Venkatesan and Others v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras and Others AIR 1997 MAD 64 : LNIND 1996 MAD 473 (ii) Superintending Engineer and Others v. Thangaprakasam AIR 1999 MAD 365 : LNIND 1999 MAD 190 are not at all referring to the provisions cited supra and the factual matrixes involved in those cases are also entirely different and I need not unnecessarily dilate on the non-applicability of those precedents. In fact, in my considered opinion, the public body like the Electricity Board should not have taken such a blanket defence to the effect that it had got power to take domestic supply line aerially across the private building of one person to the building of another. 10. Accordingly, I would like to set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court passed in A.S. No. 23 of 2008 and restore the judgment and decree of the trial court in ordering mandatory injunction. 11. 10. Accordingly, I would like to set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court passed in A.S. No. 23 of 2008 and restore the judgment and decree of the trial court in ordering mandatory injunction. 11. Relating to the rejection of the claim for damages, what I would like to observe is that because the aforesaid provisions extracted by me, were not even known to the Electricity Board officials, who were involved in this case, this mistake had erupted and in such a case, I do not think that damages should be awarded in the facts and circumstances of this case. However, by way disambiguating the ambiguity if any and to keep the judgment on an even keel, I would like to highlight and spotlight that the Electricity Board at its cost should remove the overhead electric line running aerially across the property of the plaintiff within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. With the above observation, both these second appeals are disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Appeals disposed of.