JUDGMENT : In this second appeal, challenge is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 21.02.2003 passed in A.S.No.210 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Coimbatore, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 31.03.2000 passed in O.S.No.94 of 1996 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore. 2. The suit in O.S.No.94 of 1996 has been laid by the deceased Ranga Gowder, (since deceased) father of the plaintiffs 3 to 5 and the defendants 1, 3 and 4 restraining the second defendant electricity board from effecting service connection in the name of the first defendant and it is found that the above said relief sought for, had been subsequently amended for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the second defendant to disconnect the electricity connection given to the first defendant. 3. Alleging that the properties involved in the matter are the joint family properties belonging to the above said members of the family and not yet divided and contending that without any authority, the first defendant is attempting to obtain the service connection, in respect of the house structure said to have been put up by him, from the second defendant and accordingly, seeking the relief of permanent injunction, it is found that the above said suit has come to be laid. The first defendant has taken the plea, in brief, that the properties belonging to the family, consisting of the above said members, had been already divided in the presence of the panchayatars and the mediators and according to him, in that connection, the muchalika had been executed on 25.07.1979 and accordingly, it is the case of the first defendant that the members of the family had been put in the separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares and accordingly, enjoying the same and thus, it is the further case of the first defendant, that following the same, he had constructed a residential building out of his own funds in the share allotted to him and the said house construction had been assessed to municipal tax and accordingly, seeking to obtain the service connection to the abovesaid house, it is stated by the first defendant that he had requested the electricity board, the second defendant, to effect the service connection by producing the necessary records as regards the ownership of the abovesaid property from the concerned authorities and accordingly, based on the abovesaid records, it is stated that inasmuch as the order of interim injunction obtained by the plaintiffs had ceased to operate on the dismissal of the suit for default at one stage of the matter, accordingly, it is seen that based on the records placed by the first defendant, the second defendant electricity board had effected the service connection to the house of the first defendant and accordingly, as abovestated, the plaintiffs had amended the relief into the relief of mandatory injunction for a direction to the electricity board to disconnect the service connection effected in favour of the first defendant. 4. Materials placed on record would go to show that a suit in O.S.No.707 of 1991 had also come to be laid for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the electricity board from granting the service connection to the first defendant by way of permanent injunction, which suit had come to be renumbered as O.S.No.633 of 1998. 5. It is also noted that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.94 of 1996 along with their mother had also laid the suit for partition against the first defendant and others in O.S.No.488 of 1988 seeking partition and separate possession of their due shares in the family properties. 6. 5. It is also noted that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.94 of 1996 along with their mother had also laid the suit for partition against the first defendant and others in O.S.No.488 of 1988 seeking partition and separate possession of their due shares in the family properties. 6. It is found that all the abovesaid three suits were jointly tried by the trial Court and it is seen that O.S.No.633 of 1998 had come to be dismissed as withdrawn and however, the other two suits proceeded further with the parties adducing the evidence in respect of their respective cases and accordingly, on the basis of the materials placed on record, the trial Court was pleased to grant the preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for by them in respect of the shares due to them in the family properties and accordingly, disposed of the suit in O.S.No.488 of 1988. Further, the trial Court has also, based on the appreciation of the materials placed on record, finding that the family members had been enjoying their respective portions, one way or the other and accordingly, the members of the family had also been enjoying their respective portions by obtaining separate service connection and assessment etc., and accordingly, noting that the first defendant had put up the house in the portion occupied by him and accordingly, noting that the first defendant had obtained the service connection from the second defendant based on the records secured from the concerned authorities and also noting that he has furnished indemnity bond in favour of the second defendant electricity board and accordingly, noting that in the light of the above position, the obtainment of the service connection by the first defendant from the second defendant is not causing any prejudice as such to the other members of the family, on that reasoning, dismissed the suit laid by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.94 of 1996. As against the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit in O.S.No.94/96, it is found that the plaintiffs preferred the first appeal, however, the first appellate Court also concurred with the judgement and decree of the trial Court and dismissed their appeal. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been levied. 7. As against the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit in O.S.No.94/96, it is found that the plaintiffs preferred the first appeal, however, the first appellate Court also concurred with the judgement and decree of the trial Court and dismissed their appeal. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been levied. 7. As found by the Courts below, on a perusal of the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, it is seen that though the properties belonging to the family had not been divided by metes and bounds as contended by the first defendant based on the Panchayat Muchalika dated 25.07.1979, however, the members of the family had one way or the other, been enjoying the separate portions of the family properties to suit their convenience and accordingly, on that footing, it is found that the first defendant had also put up the house construction in the portion allowed to be occupied by him separately at his own cost and it is further seen that the house construction put up by the first defendant has been separately assessed in his name and it is also seen that as determined by the Courts below, the other members of the family had also been enjoying their separate shares by obtaining service connection etc., without causing detriment to the enjoyment of the other family members and accordingly, noting all the abovesaid aspects of the matter, it is found that the first defendant in order to enjoy the house structure put up by him more conveniently, accordingly, moved the electricity board for obtaining the service connection. No doubt, the said request made by the first defendant to the electricity board had been resisted by the deceased father contending that the family properties had not been divided and hence, the first defendant cannot seek separate service connection on the footing that he is the owner of the property to which he claims. No doubt, the said request made by the first defendant to the electricity board had been resisted by the deceased father contending that the family properties had not been divided and hence, the first defendant cannot seek separate service connection on the footing that he is the owner of the property to which he claims. However, it is found that though the plaintiffs had the benefit of the Interim injunction, at one point of time, subsequently, inasmuch as they had failed to prosecute the suit laid by them, their suit had come to be dismissed for non prosecution and nearly two years thereafter only, the suit had come to be restored and accordingly, in the interregnum, based on the requisition submitted by the first defendant and the documents produced by him evidencing the ownership of the property, to which, he claimed the service connection and also the first defendant having executed the indemnity bond in favour of the electricity board and as no injunction order had been shown to be in force with reference to the grant of the service connection in favour of the first defendant, accordingly, it is found that the electricity board had effected the service connection in the name of the first defendant. Resultantly, the plaintiffs had amended the suit seeking the relief of mandatory injunction to disconnect the service connection effected by the electricity board in favour of the first defendant. 8. Resultantly, the plaintiffs had amended the suit seeking the relief of mandatory injunction to disconnect the service connection effected by the electricity board in favour of the first defendant. 8. However, the Courts below, considering the materials available on record, noting that the properties belonging to the family had not been divided by metes and bounds, still noting that the members had been enjoying the separate portions of the properties, according to their convenience and needs and further, noting that the other members of the family had also been obtained service connection in their individual names, which had not caused any hindrance or hardship to the other members and considering the materials placed by the first defendant evidencing his ownership over the house construction put up by him, particularly, the same having been assessed separately in his name as well as the other ownership certificate, produced by him from the revenue authorities and also the account maintained by the first defendant with reference to the construction of the house put up by him marked as Ex.B1 and finding that the electricity board had granted the service connection in favour of the first defendant, accordingly, noting that though the first defendant had also admitted that he is willing to abide by the decree that had been passed in the partition suit in O.S.No.488 of 1988, however, considering the fact that as the first defendant had been enjoying the house put up by him separately in a portion of the family properties and even the other members of the family had been residing separately in the other portions, accordingly, the Courts below noting that the members of the family being the co-owners and on that reasoning also, they cannot restrain the first defendant from enjoying the service connection effected in his favour with reference to the house put up by him and on that footing, it is found that the Courts below had declined the relief sought for by the plaintiffs. In this connection, it is also to be noted that the Courts below had also observed that the first defendant would also, if advised, move for the allotment of the portion, in which, he had put up the house construction towards his share as it is found that the first defendant also is entitled to his due share in the family properties, during the course of final decree proceedings. Accordingly, considering all the abovesaid factors, it is found that the Courts below had refused to grant the reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs. 9. In the light of the above position, I do not find any acceptable reason as such to interfere with the determination of the Courts below in allowing the first defendant to enjoy the service connection effected in his favour till the properties are divided by metes and bounds as per the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.488 of 1988 and in that view of the matter, the declinement of the relief sought for by the plaintiffs by the Courts below as against the disconnection of the service connection effected in favour of the first defendant by the second defendant, do not warrant any interference and consequently, it is noted that, as such, no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. Resultantly, the second appeal fails and accordingly, is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.