JUDGMENT : 1. The second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2000 passed in A.S.No.158 of 2000 on the file of the First Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 24.08.1999 passed in O.S.No.566 of 1998 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Erode. 2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court. 3. Suit for permanent injunction. 4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that S.F.No.509 of Attavanai Anumanpalli Village belonged to the plaintiff's family and the defendants' family and there is a Well in the above said field and the plaintiff's grandfather Kaliappa gounder was entitled to a half share, one Karuppana gounder and Vellappa gounder were entitled to each ¼ share in the Well and the land in S.F.No.509. On 26.03.1954, Kaliyappa gounder, Karuppanagounder and Sengayammal w/o. Velappa Gounder divided the properties by way of partition deed and as per terms of the partition deed, Kaliyappa Gounder was allotted ½ share in the Well in S.F.No.509 and on 21.11.1964, the plaintiff's father Ramasamy Gounder purchased ¼ share in the Well in S.F.No. 509 and other properties from Karuppana Gounder. The plaintiff's father pre-deceased his father Kaliappa Gounder and Kaliappa Gounder had executed a Will on 06.11.1974 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing his properties in favour of the plaintiff and thus, the plaintiff's family is entitled to ¾ share in the Well in S.F.No.509 and the Well therein. The first defendant is the son of Velappa gounder and Sengayammal and the second defendant is the wife of the first defendant. The defendants 3 & 4 are the sons of the defendants 1 & 2. The defendants are entitled to ¼ share in S.F.No.509 and the Well therein. The plaintiff's grandfather Kaliyappa Gounder obtained electric service connection in 1971 for 5 HP electric motor and obtained service connection number 69, old service connection No.578 and Kaliappa Gounder died on 12.1.1998 and the service connection continues to stand in the name of Kaliappa Gounder. The defendants are entitled to ¼ share in S.F.No.509 and the Well therein. The plaintiff's grandfather Kaliyappa Gounder obtained electric service connection in 1971 for 5 HP electric motor and obtained service connection number 69, old service connection No.578 and Kaliappa Gounder died on 12.1.1998 and the service connection continues to stand in the name of Kaliappa Gounder. The first defendant gave his consent for installing electric motor in the Well and thus, the plaintiff is enjoying the electric motor in the Well and the plaintiff's grandfather and the plaintiff had been paying the charges for the electric motor and irrigating his lands with the electric motor and while so, the defendants are not entitled to any right or share in the electric motor, interfered with the plaintiff's right to draw water from the Well using the electric motor in full and hence, the plaintiff has been necessitated to lay the suit for permanent injunction. 5. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is correct to state that S.F.No.509 belonged to the plaintiff's family and the defendants' family and there is a Well in the above said field and it is correct to state that Kaliappa gounder was entitled to half share in the Well and the parties have effected partition and correct to state that Kaliappa gounder was allotted ½ share in the Well and the averment that the plaintiff's father purchased ¼ share in the Well and other properties from Karuppanna Gounder is not admitted. It is false to state that the plaintiff's grandfather Kaliappa Gounder had executed the Will on 06.11.1974 bequeathing his property in favour of the plaintiff in a sound and disposing state of mind. It is false to state that the plaintiff's family is entitled to ¾ share in the Well. The service connection was not obtained by Kaliappa Gounder as put forth in the plaint. It is false to state that the plaintiff's is bailing water during his turn as pleaded in the plaint. It is false to state that the plaintiff's grandfather had obtained the service connection on his own and that, the first defendant gave his consent for the same and the plaintiff's grandfather has been paying the service charges for the electric motor. It is false to state that the plaintiff's grandfather had obtained the service connection on his own and that, the first defendant gave his consent for the same and the plaintiff's grandfather has been paying the service charges for the electric motor. The defendants have ¼ share in the Well and the land in S.F.No.509 and in the year 1971, Kaliappa Gounder and the first defendant had jointly installed 5 HP electric motor to the Well in S.F.No.509 for irrigating their lands and the electric motor was purchased at a price of Rs.7,000/- and both the first defendant and Kaliappa Gounder have equally contributed towards the purchase price. Since Kaliappa Gounder was the elder member of the family, the service connection was obtained in his name and hence, both Kaliappa Gounder and the first defendant's family are entitled to each ½ share in the 5 HP electric motor and the first defendant's family are entitled to bail water during their turn from the well utilizing the 5 HP electric motor and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. In support of the plaintiff's case, PWs1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to 14 were marked. On the side of the defendants' DWs1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to 7 were marked. 7. The trial Court, on a consideration of the materials placed and the submissions made, decreed the suit as prayed for. On appeal, the first appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and thereby allowing the appeal, dismissed the suit laid by the plaintiff. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been preferred. 8. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration: “1. Inspite of the finding that plaintiff is entitled to 3/4th share in the common well and half share in the motor and pump-set, whether the lower appellate Court is justified in dismissing the suit in entirety? 2.When the service connection for the motor and pump-set stands in the name of plaintiff's grandfather, being an ostensible owner, is the lower appellate Court justified in holding that the first defendant has got half share in the service connection and in the motor and pump-set?” 9. 2.When the service connection for the motor and pump-set stands in the name of plaintiff's grandfather, being an ostensible owner, is the lower appellate Court justified in holding that the first defendant has got half share in the service connection and in the motor and pump-set?” 9. From the materials placed, it is seen that there is no dispute that the plaintiff's family has ¾ share in the Well and the land in S.F.No.509 and the defendants' family have ¼ share in the Well and the land in S.F.No.509. The dispute between the parties is with regard to the ownership of 5 HP electric motor plus / service connection fixed in the above said Well. Now, according to the plaintiff, the above said 5 H.P electric motor had been fixed by his grandfather Kaliappa Gounder on his own after obtaining the consent of the first defendant and accordingly, the service connection stood in the name of his grandfather and thereby exercising full and absolute right over the same, his grandfather and thereafter, the plaintiff had been drawing water from the Well during their turns and the defendants' family have no right in the said electric motor and on the other hand, as the defendants' attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's right to use the electric motor, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiff claims right to the suit property by virtue of the Will stated to have been executed in his favour by his grandfather Kaliappa Gounder on 6.11.1974, which has come to be marked as Ex.A4. 10. The defence set out by the defendants is that the disputed 5 HP electric motor has been installed both by Kaliappa Gounder and the first defendant by contributing equal amount and as Kaliappa gounder was the elder member of the family, the service connection was obtained in his name and by the same, Kaliappa gounder and the first defendant have equal right to the Electric Motor indispute and hence, according to the defendants, they also have equal right in the electric motor fixed in the Well and draw water from the Well during their turns and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain the relief sought for. 11. 11. In this matter, as the dispute revolves around the electric motor plus service connection alone, it is unnecessary to dwell into the other questions and accordingly, it is seen that though the plaintiff claims absolute right to the suit property in question, i.e. the electric motor, in the Will marked as Ex.A4, as rightly found by the first appellate Court, it is seen that there is no reference at all about the electric motor in specific in the above said Will said to have been executed by Kaliappa Gounder in favour of the plaintiff. If really, the electric motor in dispute had been obtained by Kaliappa gounder, on his own, referring about the same, he would have mentioned in the said Will and accordingly, the same would have been bequeathed in specific to the plaintiff under the said document. However, there is no reference about any ownership of the said electric motor by Kaliappa Gounder in the said Will. 12. In this case, the Engineer of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board examined as DW3 has marked the test report as Ex.B6. It is stated that the test report has been prepared immediately on the obtainment of service connection to the disputed electric motor. In Ex.B6, it is found that both Kaliyappa gounder and the first defendant had signed above the caption “the owners”. If really, Kaliyappa gounder had exclusive ownership of the electric motor in question and the first defendant has no right whatsoever to the same, there is no need for obtaining the signature of the first defendant in the test report marked as Ex.B6. Therefore, as rightly found by the first appellate Court, it is seen that inasmuch both Kaliyappa gounder and the first defendant have equal right over the electric motor in dispute it is seen that in the test report prepared pertaining to the same both Kaliyappa gounder and the first defendant had signed above the caption “the owners” and the above piece of evidence would only go to establish the version put forth by the defendants. No doubt, only Kaliyappa gounder had signed above the caption “consumer's signature”. No doubt, only Kaliyappa gounder had signed above the caption “consumer's signature”. However, as rightly put forth by the defendants inasmuch as the service connection had been obtained in the name of the Kaliyappa gounder, he being the elder member of the family, it is found that he had signed in the column “consumer” and by way of the same it cannot be held that he has full ownership of the electric motor in dispute. Therefore, as rightly determined by the first appellate court, it is seen that Ex.B6 would clinchingly establish that both Kaliyappa gounder as well as the first defendant have equal right in the electric motor in question. 13. It is the specific case of the defendants that both Kaliyappa Gounder and the first defendant had equally contributed the sum for the purchase of electric motor at a price of Rs.7,000/- and in this connection, the document Ex.B5 has been pressed into service. To establish Ex.B5, the attestor of the document has been examined as DW2. Both the first defendant examined as DW1 and the attestor examined as DW2 had testified about the equal contribution of the price for the purchase of the electric motor in question and accordingly, both Kaliyappa gounder and the first defendant had chosen to execute Ex.B5 in the presence of the witness affirming that they have contributed equal sum for the purchase of the electric motor in question. Merely because DW2 happened to be a relative of the defendants that by itself would not render his evidence unacceptable when it is found that inasmuch as Kaliappa gounder and the first defendant had chosen to execute Ex.B5 in the presence of the witness affirming that they have contributed equal sum for the purchase of the electric motor in question, it is seen that document Ex.B5 had come into existence between the parties. Ex.B5 is also amply corroborated by the document Ex.B6 test report as adverted above. Therefore, it is seen that Ex.B5 also substantially establishes the defence version. 14. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendants have no right whatsoever in the electric motor. However, it is seen that while purchasing the shares from the others, the defendants have also purchased the appropriate share of the electric motor also and accordingly, it is seen that under Ex.B3 they have purchased a share of the electric motor in question. However, it is seen that while purchasing the shares from the others, the defendants have also purchased the appropriate share of the electric motor also and accordingly, it is seen that under Ex.B3 they have purchased a share of the electric motor in question. It is further noted that the document under which the defendants have purchased the share in the electric motor had been attested by the plaintiff's father and this fact has not been disputed by the plaintiff. Inasmuch as the defendants have share in the electric motor it is found that accepting the said fact the plaintiff's father had also attested the document Ex.B3 and the signature of the plaintiff's father has been specifically marked as Ex.B2. That apart, the document marked as Ex.B7 would also go to show that the defendants have purchased further share of the electric motor from the vendors concerned and had they not acquired any ownership of the electric motor as affirmed under the said documents, as put forth by the defendants, the plaintiff's father would not have attested the said document accepting the title of the defendants in the electric motor. Therefore, it is seen that as rightly determined by the first appellate court, the plaintiff's father by way of attestation has admitted the ownership of the electric motor by the defendants' also and accordingly, it is seen that the defendants have also equal share in the electric motor in question. 15. As regards the ownership of the Well and the lands in question of the parties, there is no dispute. The only dispute between them is concerning the electric motor plus service connection only. 16. The plaintiff has laid the suit seeking right to draw water from the Well and thereby sought for restrainment of the defendants from interfering with his right to draw water on the footing that he has absolute right in the electric motor in question. The only dispute between them is concerning the electric motor plus service connection only. 16. The plaintiff has laid the suit seeking right to draw water from the Well and thereby sought for restrainment of the defendants from interfering with his right to draw water on the footing that he has absolute right in the electric motor in question. However, when it is found that the plaintiff has no exclusive right to the electric motor in dispute and on the other hand, it is found that the defendants have also equal right and ownership in the electric motor in dispute and when it has not been established that the defendants had interfered with the plaintiff's right to draw water from the Well in question during his turn, as determined by the first appellate court, the plaintiffs would not be entitled to obtain the equitable relief of permanent injunction as claimed in the plaint. 17. In the light of the above discussions, it is found that the lower appellate court, on a proper appreciation of the materials placed, held that the defendants have equal share in the service connection and the electric motor and pump-set in dispute and accordingly, inasmuch as the first appellate court has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to absolute right and ownership in the motor and pump-set and electric service connection in question, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly dismissed the suit in entirety, finding that the defendants have not interfered with the plaintiff's right to draw water from the Well during his turn. In such view of the matter, the substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. 18. The plaintiff's counsel, in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the decisions reported in 2008 (5) CTC 219 (Chidambara Padayachi Vs. Vellaiya Padayachi and 7 others (Minors represented by mother and guardian Poongavanam Ammal), 2009 (4) CTC 698 (Natarajan Vs. Sengamala Moopanar) and 2003 (1) CTC 745 (K.A.Selvanachi and another Vs. Dr.S.R.Sekara and another). The defendants' counsel, in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the decision reported in 1975 LW page 549 (Jayarama Chandra Iyer Vs. Thulasi Ammal and others). The principles of law outlined in the above decisions are taken into consideration and followed, as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. 19. Dr.S.R.Sekara and another). The defendants' counsel, in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the decision reported in 1975 LW page 549 (Jayarama Chandra Iyer Vs. Thulasi Ammal and others). The principles of law outlined in the above decisions are taken into consideration and followed, as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. 19. In conclusion, the second appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.