JUDGMENT : 1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.153 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, reversing the Judgment and Decree passed by the Additional District Munsif No.I, Tiruvannamalai, in O.S.No.427 of 1996. 2. The averments made in the plaint are in brief as follows: The 3.00 acres of land and a Well out of 7 acres in old Survey No.38, Neikuppam Village, Tiruvannamalai Taluk, is the ancestral property of the plaintiff's father, N.Annamalai Gounder S/o.Narayana Gounder. In the year 1962, the said N.Annamalai Gounder, from and out of his own funds, installed a 5 HP Electric Motor and pumpset in the above said Well and obtained an Electric Service Connection bearing Service Connection No.40 which is more fully described in the plaint schedule and he has been using the same to irrigate his lands. The said N.Annamalai Gounder has been paying Electricity Consumption charges. He died in the month of December, 1991. After his death, his sons viz., the plaintiff and his brother Shanmugam, inherited the property and they have been enjoying the same. The new Survey Number for the schedule mentioned Well is 37/5. The plaintiff and his brother, Shanmugam have divided their family properties under a registered partition deed dated 02.12.1994. In the said partition, the schedule mentioned electric motor and pumpset and other properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the suit properties. The defendants 1 and 2 are husband and wife and they have no right what-so-ever over the schedule mentioned Electric Motor and Pumpset. They tried to trespass into the suit property and hence, the plaintiff has filed the above suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men etc., from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 3. The averments made in the written statement are in brief as follows: The allegations that 3 acres of land and Well out of 7 acres comprised in old Survey No.38 of Neikuppam village are the ancestral property of the plaintiff's father, N.Annamalai Gounder and that in the year 1962, the said N.Annamalai Gounder from and out of his own funds, installed a 5 inch Electric Motor and pumpset in the said Well and obtained an Electric Service Connection bearing S.C.No.40 are all false. The said N.Annamalai Gounder and Vengu Gounder are brothers and they are the sons of one Narayana Gounder. They inherited 7 acres of land in S.No.38 of Neikuppam village from their father, Narayana Gounder. Out of love and affection, they have executed a settlement deed dated 21.12.1948 in respect of one acre in favour of their sister, Ayyammal. The said N. AnnamalaiGounder and his brother Vengu Gounder constituted an undivided Hindu Joint Family of which N. Annamalai Gounder was the Manager and Karta. From and out of the income earned by the joint exertions, they had purchased the suit Electric Motor and pumpset and installed in the suit Well in 1960 and the service connection for the said pumpset bearing S.C.No.40 was obtained in the name of N. Annamalai Gounder in his capacity as the Manager and Karta of the said Joint family and for the benefit of all the members of the said joint family. Both of them had been jointly enjoying the suit motor pumpset and irrigating their ancestral joint family lands. In and about the month of May, 1961, the said N.Annamalai Gounder and his brother Vengu Gounder orally partitioned their ancestral joint family property including the suit Well and the suit motor pumpset into two shares. Thus, the said N.Annamalai Gounder and Vengu Gounder had been allotted 3 acres of land in S.No.38 along with half a share in the suit Well and in the motor pumpset and 0.50 acre in S.No.23/5 each. Ever since the date of partition, the respective sharers had irrigated their respective shares of land by taking water from the suit Well by operating the suit motor pumpset. The said Vengu Gounder sold 0.33 acre in S.No.38 including the proportionate share in the suit Well and pumpset to one P.Annamalai Gounder, S/o.Perumal Gounder, through a registered sale deed dated 25.07.1961. Subsequently, the said Vengu Gounder sold 0.50 acre in S.No.23/5 including one-sixth share in the suit Well and suit pumpset to the aforesaid N.AnnamalaiGounder, S/o. Perumal Gounder under a registered sale deed dated 12.12.1967. Thereafter, one K. Ramanatha Nainar had filed a suit in O.S.No.135 of 1968 and obtained a money decree against the said Vengu Gounder and brought the property of the said Vengu Gounder for auction sale by filing Execution Petition. Thereafter, one K. Ramanatha Nainar had filed a suit in O.S.No.135 of 1968 and obtained a money decree against the said Vengu Gounder and brought the property of the said Vengu Gounder for auction sale by filing Execution Petition. The property of the said Vengu Gounder was sold to the aforesaid N. AnnamalaiGounder S/o.Perumal Gounder including one-third share of the suit Well. Thereafter, the said N.Annamalai Gounder and his brother, P. Ramasamy Gounder had partitioned their joint family properties through a registered partitioned deed dated 22.04.1975. The 'A' schedule property mentioned in the said partition deed was allotted to the share of N. Annamalai Gounder and 'B' schedule property was allotted to the said P. Ramasamy Gounder including two-third share in the suit Well and suit electric motor and service connection. The first defendant purchased one acre in S.R.No.38 with specific boundaries along with one-nineth share in the suit Well and motor pumpset and service connection from the aforesaid P.Ramasamy Gounder S/o.Perumal Gounder under a registered sale deed dated 26.03.1984 and he has been enjoying the same by irrigating his land by taking water from the suit Well. He also paid electric charges to the aforesaid service connection. Subsequently, the defendants 1 and 2 have purchased some other properties through a registered sale deed dated 24.03.1987 along with one-sixth share in the suit Well and electric motor and service connection. Thus, both the defendants are entitled to 10/36th share in the suit Well, motor and service connection. The plaintiff has no manner of right to prevent the defendants from using the suit Well, motor pumpset and service connection. Further the plaintiff and his brother Shanmugam are not legitimate sons of the Late.N. AnnamalaiGounder. Therefore, the defendants prayed to dismiss the above suit. 4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the learned District Munsif has averred necessary issues and tried the suit during trial. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and also examined two more witnesses, PW2 and PW3 and he has marked Exs.A1 to A34 as Exhibits. On the side of the defendants, first defendant was examined as DW1 and DW3. More witnesses were examined as D.W.2 to D.W.4 and Exs.B1 to B21 were marked. One document has been marked as 'C1'. 5. On the side of the defendants, first defendant was examined as DW1 and DW3. More witnesses were examined as D.W.2 to D.W.4 and Exs.B1 to B21 were marked. One document has been marked as 'C1'. 5. The learned District Munsif, after considering the materials placed before him, he found that defendants also got a share in the suit Well, motor pumpset and service connection and as such, no injunction can be granted against the co-owners. Accordingly, he has dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.153 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamai. The learned First Appellate Court Judge held that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit Well, motor pumpset and service connection, in which, the defendants have no share and therefore, the learned Judge has set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and decreed the plaintiff's suit as prayed for. As against the same, the defendants have filed the present second appeal. 6. At the time of admitting the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated as follows: (a) When the evidence both oral and documentary clearly established the fact that the service connection was applied for by the deceased N.Annamalai Gounder while he was a joint family Manager, is the learned Principal District Judge right in negativing the plea of the defendants that they are the co-owners of the suit Well, pumpset and the service connection” (b) Whether the learned Principal District Judge right in granting a decree for injunction in favour of one co-owner against the other co-owner” (c) When the plaintiff failed to prove that he is the legitimate heir of the deceased N.Annamalai Gounder, but is the learned Principal District Judge right in granting a decree?" 7. Heard both sides. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants contended that the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the Well considered Judgment of the Trial Court. He further contended that the evidence available on record would clearly show that the suit motor pumpset was purchased by joint efforts of the N.Annamalai Gounder and his brother Vengu Gounder before the partition took place between them and the service connection was obtained in the name of the said N.Annamalai Gounder as he was Karta and Manager of the joint family. He further contended that the First Appellate Court failed to consider that the defendants also paid electricity charges and wrongly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit motor pumpset and service connection. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, on the contrary, contended that the defendants have stated in their written statement that the service connection was obtained in the year 1960 whereas the service connection extract (Ex.C1) would clearly show that the service connection itself was given only on 31.10.1961 and therefore, the contention of the defendants that the service connection obtained in the year 1960 is not correct. He further contended that admittedly oral partition was effected between the said N. Annamalai Gounder and his brother Vengu Gounder in the month of May, 1961 and only thereafter, service connection was obtained by N. Annamalai Gounder and therefore, the defendants cannot claim any right in the suit motor pumpset and service connection. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the second appeal. 10. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff's father, N. Annamalai Gounder and first defendant's father, Vengu Gounder are brothers and they got ancestral property in old survey No.38 of Neikuppam village (then New.SR.No.37/5). The suit Well is situated in the aforesaid Survey Number. 11. According to the defendants, the said N.Annamalai Gounder was the Manager and Karta of the joint family and hence, the service connection was obtained in his name. The plaintiff while examining himself as PW1, has admitted in his cross examination that the said N.Annamalai Gounder is the karta of the family. But he denied the suggestion that the service connection was obtained in his name as he was karta of the family. The defendants have stated in the written statement that in or about the month of May, 1961, the said N.Annamalai Gounder and his brother Vengu Gounder orally partitioned their family members. The said statement was not denied by the plaintiff. So it has to be presumed that till the month of May, 1961, the said N.Annamalai Gounder and his brother Vengu Gounder had enjoyed the family properties jointly. 12. The defendants in their written statement have not stated that the service connection was obtained in the year 1960 itself. The said statement was not denied by the plaintiff. So it has to be presumed that till the month of May, 1961, the said N.Annamalai Gounder and his brother Vengu Gounder had enjoyed the family properties jointly. 12. The defendants in their written statement have not stated that the service connection was obtained in the year 1960 itself. The relevant portion of the written statement is extracted hereunder: The suit electric motor pumpset and accessories have been purchased and installed in the suit Well in 1960 and the service connection for the said pumpset bearing Service Connection No.40 was obtained in the name of the N. Annamalai Gounder in his capacity as the Manager and Karta of the said joint family". From the aforesaid statement, it is clear that the defendants have stated that the suit electric motor pumpset was installed in the suit Well in 1960. But they have not stated that the service connection also obtained in the year 1960. 13. The aforesaid statement would be corroborated by Ex.B1 (Sale deed dated 25.07.1961 executed by the Vengu Gounder in favour of the one P. Annamalai Gounder S/o. Perumal Gounder). In the said document, it has been specifically stated that the proportionate share in the Well and 5 HP Electric Motor pumpset installed therein also sold. But service connection has not been mentioned in the said document. It shows that at the time of execution of Ex.B1, electric motor and pumpset alone installed in the suit Well. But service connection was not obtained and only thereafter, the service connection would have been obtained. In Ex.C1 (extract of the service connection), it is stated that the service connection stands in the name of N. Annamalai Gounder and the service connection security deposit was made on 29.07.1961 and service connection was given on 31.10.1961. This also shows that at the time of execution of Ex.B1, service connection was not given. It is pertinent to note that, at the time of execution of Ex.B1, there was no dispute between the parties. Therefore, there was no necessity for the Vengu Gounder to mention in Ex.B1 that he got a share in the suit Well and motor pumpset. 14. In the subsequent sale deeds also (Exs.B2 to Ex.B5), motor pumpset and service connection have been mentioned. Therefore, there was no necessity for the Vengu Gounder to mention in Ex.B1 that he got a share in the suit Well and motor pumpset. 14. In the subsequent sale deeds also (Exs.B2 to Ex.B5), motor pumpset and service connection have been mentioned. Further, Ex.B10 to Ex.B19 (electricity consumption bills and receipts) would show that the defendants and their predecessors have paid electricity charges for the suit service connection. There is no explanation from the plaintiff that how those electricity bills and receipts came to the custody of the defendants. Unless they enjoyed the suit motor pumpset and service connection, they would not have paid electricity charges and produced those documents before the Court. The First Appellate Court simply ignored the electricity bills and the receipts, on the ground that they were in the name of N. Annamalai Gounder. Since the service connection stands in the name of N. Annamalai Gounder, the electricity bills and the receipts would come only in the name of N. Annamalai Gounder. As already stated, there is no explanation from the plaintiff as to how the aforesaid bills and receipts came to the custody of the defendants. 15. In Ex.C1, the date of application has not been mentioned. The plaintiff has not taken any steps to send for the application given by the said N. Annamalai Gounder seeking service connection. Further, the plaintiff has not produced the receipt for purchasing the motor pump set. If those documents were produced before the Court, they would show that when the motor was purchased and when application was made seeking service connection. The plaintiff might have thought that if those documents were produced, that the case may go against him. Therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against him. The documents especially the electricity bills and receipts produced by the defendants would clearly establish that they have been enjoying the suit motor pump set and service connection. In the said circumstances, the case of the defendants that the service connection obtained, before effecting partition, in the name of the said N. Annamalai Gounder as he was Manager and Kartha of the joint family has to be accepted. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim exclusive right over the suit motor pump set and service connection. The defendants are being co-owners and no injunction can be granted against them. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim exclusive right over the suit motor pump set and service connection. The defendants are being co-owners and no injunction can be granted against them. Therefore, the findings of the First Appellate Court is against the evidence on record. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered. 16. In the result, the Second Appeal is allowed. The Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.153 of 1999 are set aside and the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.426 of 1996 are restored. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no cost is ordered.