JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. The defendant No.1 / appellant has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by judgment dated 22.06.2018, passed by the District Judge Ratlam, whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2018, passed by the 4th Civil Judge, Class II, Ratlam, in Civil Suit No.248A/2017, has been set aside and the decree has been granted in favour of the plaintiff. 3. Facts of the case for disposal of this appeal are as under : 4. The respondent No.1 being a plaintiff, filed a suit for mandatory injunction. As per pleading in the plaint, the father of the plaintiff Kuwar Mahavir Singh, sold the land having Survey No.209 measuring 3 Biswa including Ragunath Sagar well situated on Survey No.210 with well, trees and house on the land measuring 22 Bigas 17 Biswa vide registered sale deed dated 10.11.1961 to Kuwar Ramendra Singh. As per the terms and conditions of the sale deed tap, pump, engine etc fitted to the well will remained intact and the house would belong to the buyer, but the seller will have the right to use the house without payment of rent. The seller was a owner of land 83/4 Biga of Survey No.132 and out of which he used to irrigate the 20 Biga land through pipe and pump fitted in Ragunath Sagar well and in the sale deed, he retained such right of irrigation till the seller does not sale his property to third party. After the death of seller Kuwar Mahavir Singh, the plaintiff became the bhoomi swami and continued to irrigate his land in terms of the sale deed dated 10.11.1961. After the death of buyer – Ramendra Singh, his son Gajraj Singh and daughter-in-law Gayetri Rathore (defendant no.1) became the bhoomi swami of the land purchased by way of sale deed dated 10.11.1969. The defendant no.1 Gayatri Devi, after becoming the absolute owner of the suit property tried to restrain the plaintiff to use the well and requested the defendant No.2 for not providing the electricity connection to plaintiff in order to operate and run, fitted over the well. The cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff on 28.10.2014, for filing the suit for permanent injunction. 5. The cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff on 28.10.2014, for filing the suit for permanent injunction. 5. The defendant No.1 filed reply admitting the execution of the sale deed dated 10.11.1961 and further submitted that after 55 years of the execution of the sale deed, it is not possible for her to allow the plaintiff to use the disputed well for drawing the water for irrigation. She has further submitted that the well is not so deep and during summer season the water level goes down and the same is insufficient for her use also, therefore, the plaintiff is not having right to obtain the electricity connection over her land, as she is absolute owner and the pliant is liable to be dismissed. 6. The defendant No.2 filed written – statement by submitting that the defendant No.1 on 27.10.2014 objected for providing electricity connection to the plaintiff. Accordingly, vide notice dated 28.10.2014, the plaintiff has been returned the charges paid by him for obtaining the connection. The present suit has been filed without notice under Section 80 of CPC, 1908, to the defendant No.2, hence liable to be dismissed. 7. On the basis of pleading, the learned Civil Judge framed 8 issues for adjudication, which are as under :- Sr. No. Issues Findings 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to irrigate his 20 bigha of his land on survey number 132 measuring 83/4 bigha from the disputed well Raghunath Sagar situated on Survey No.209? “Proved” 2. Whether defendant number 1 is interfering in plaintiff's right to irrigate his 20 bigha of his land on survey number 132 measuring 83/4 bigha from the disputed well Raghunath Sagar situated on survey number 209? 3. Whether electricity connection installed by plaintiff for irrigation of 20 bigha land on survey number 132 measuring 83/4 bigha has been illegally disconnected by defendant number 2? “Proved” 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to obtain electricity connection for irrigation of 20 bigha of land on survey no. 132 measuring 83/4 bigha? “Not Proved” 5. Whether the suit is maintainable against defendant number 2 in absence of prior notice under section 80 CPC? “Proved” 6. Whether the plaintiff has rightly valued the suit and paid adequate court fees? “Proved” 7. Relief and Costs, if any? As per paragraph No. 8. Whether there is non-joinder of necessary parties in the suit? “Not Proved” 8. Whether the suit is maintainable against defendant number 2 in absence of prior notice under section 80 CPC? “Proved” 6. Whether the plaintiff has rightly valued the suit and paid adequate court fees? “Proved” 7. Relief and Costs, if any? As per paragraph No. 8. Whether there is non-joinder of necessary parties in the suit? “Not Proved” 8. The plaintiff in support of the suit examined Yashpal Singh (PW1) and Prabhu (PW2). Defendant no.1 has on the other hand examined Gayatri Singh (DW1). Defendant no.2 has examined Ankur Singh (DW2). Plaintiff has filed copy of sale deed dated 10.11.9161 which was compared with the original (Ex.P.1C), copy of bhoo-adhikar and rin pustika which was compared with the original (Ex.P.2C), notice given to defendant No.2 for connection (Ex.P.3), notice dated 30.10.14 (Ex.P.4), postal receipt of the above notice (Ex.P.5 to 7), reply to the above notice (Ex.P.8), acknowledgement (Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.10), reply to the. Defendant, has on the other hand presented Kistbandi Khatauni (Ex.D.1), Khasra (Ex.D.2) and application dated 27.10.2014 filed by defendant No.1 before defendant No.2 (Ex.D.3). 9. After appreciating the evidence came on record, the learned Civil Judge answered the issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff that he is having right to irrigate his 20 Bigha of his land of Survey No.132 from disputed well on Survey No.209, but answered the issue No.3 and 4 against the plaintiff that he is not entitled to obtain the electricity connection for irrigation of 20 Bigha of land of Survey No.132 have partly decreed the suit vide judgment dated 30.01.2018. 10. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the relief in respect of electricity connection, the plaintiff preferred a First Appeal No.24/2018, before the District Judge, Ratlam. Vide judgment dated 22.06.2018, the learned District Judge has held that the plaintiff is having right to obtain the electricity connection over the well and as he can be termed as an occupier under Section 43 of the Electricity Act and accordingly, directed the defendant no.2 to grant the electricity connection as per the Rules framed by the Government. 11. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.06.2018, passed by the District judge, now the defendant No.1 has preferred the present appeal before this court mainly on the ground that the plaintiff is neither the 'owner' nor 'occupier', therefore, he is not entitled to obtain the electricity connection under Section 43 of the Indian Electricity Act. 11. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.06.2018, passed by the District judge, now the defendant No.1 has preferred the present appeal before this court mainly on the ground that the plaintiff is neither the 'owner' nor 'occupier', therefore, he is not entitled to obtain the electricity connection under Section 43 of the Indian Electricity Act. The learned Appellate Court has wrongly held that plaintiff is entitled to obtain the electricity connection over the land owned by the defendant – No.1 – appellant and accordingly, suggested the number of substantial questions of law mentioned in memo of appeal, whether the appellate Court was justified in setting aside the judgment and decree and directing the defendant No.2 to grant electricity connection to the plaintiff who is neither the occupier nor owner of the property. 12. I have heard Shri Vinay Zelawat, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, Shri Vinay Saraf, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.1 and Shri A. Tugnawat, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 at length and perused the record. 13. That execution of sale deed dated 10.11.1961 and its terms and conditions are not in dispute between the parties. The learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 30.01.2018 has already held that the plaintiff is having right to irrigate his 20 Bigha of land of Survey No.132 from the disputed well Raghunath Sagar. Since the defendants No.1 and 2 did not assail the judgment and decree by way of appeal or cross appeal, therefore, the same has attained the finality. Therefore, so far the right of the plaintiff is concerned to irrigate his land from the well is not required to be examined in this appeal and the same has attained finality. The only issue, which is under consideration in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is having right to obtain the electricity connection in order to irrigate his land from the well. The only issue, which is under consideration in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is having right to obtain the electricity connection in order to irrigate his land from the well. In order to appreciate the arguments of learned Senior counsel on the aforesaid point the relevant para of sale deed is reproduced below :- ^^;g gS fd cspku'kqnk vkjkth lnj losZ uEcj 209] jdck 3 fcLok esa tks gqok gS tks bl ospkuukesa esa 'kfey gksdj ml dqosZ ij xMZj fu'kUuh o uy oxSjk iEi vksaftu QhV djus gsrq yxs gqos gS tks cnLrqj yxs jgsaxs] mDr eVsjh;y fudkyus dk eq>s dksbZ gDd ugh jgsxkA ;g gS fd dqos ds ikl nf{k.k fn'kk esa ,d eaftyk edku irjsikl cuk gqok gS tks bls cspku esa 'kkfey gS o iqoZ fn'kk esa tks edku cuk gqok gS ml ij ekydkuk gDd vki dqoj jkesUnzflagth [kjhnnkj dk gh jgsxk] fdUrq mldk mi;ksx o miHkksx ge fodzsrk dj ldsaxsA ftldk ge fdlh izdkj dk fdjk;k edku dk ugh nsosxasA ;g gS fd fodz;'kqnk Hkqfe losZ uEcj 209 esa tks dqok :xukFklkxj ds uke ls e'kgqj gS mlls ikbZi }kjk fo;r ge fodszrk dh losZ uEcj 132 dh Hkqfe jdck ch?kk 83@4 esa ls djhcu 20 ch?kk fi;r gksrh gS tks cnLrqj fi;r bl dqos ls tkjh jgsxh fdUrq izfrcU/k ;g jgsxk fd mDr fi;r dh Hkqfe tc rd ge fodszrk dh ekydh dh jgsxh rc rd fi;r djus dk gesa vf/kdkj jgsxk o ge fodszrkx.k }kjk nhxj O;fDr;ksa dks Hkqfe cspku djus ij mDr dqosZ :?kukFklkxj ls fi;r djus dk vf/kdkj ugh jgsxkA** 14. It is clear from the aforesaid terms and conditions of the sale deed that at the time of sale pump and tap were fitted in the well situated over the Survey No.209 and the seller did not retain the right to remove the said pump. The seller had further retained the right to draw the water from Raghunath Sagar well through pump and pipe for irrigation of 20 Bigha land of Survey No.132 till his ownership. The seller was drawing the water though said pump and pipeline. The seller had further retained the right to draw the water from Raghunath Sagar well through pump and pipe for irrigation of 20 Bigha land of Survey No.132 till his ownership. The seller was drawing the water though said pump and pipeline. The said pump was being operated through electricity, which is established from Exhibit D/3, which is a letter dated 27.10.2014 by which the defendant No.1 requested for a removal of the electricity connection obtained by the plaintiff and further requested the defendant No.1 not to give new electricity connection without her written consent. 15. The defendant No.1 became the owner of the property by way of succession, therefore, she is also bound by condition of sale deed executed by her father-in-law. By way of sale deed right to use the well through pump and pipe was retained by seller, therefore, the plaintiff comes under the category of occupier for the limited purpose of using the well through pump. By way of denial of the electricity connection to operate the pump, the defendant is trying to violate the condition of the sale by which the seller retained the right to use the well and that right has been upheld by the trial court. In landlord tenant dispute, if tenant is an occupier in the premise, is having right to use the electricity or water an easementry right. He is also permitted to obtain the electricity connection in his name. The landlord cannot deny him the electricity or water, so long he is in possession of the house because owner is not permitted to obstruct these facilities in order to get the eviction of tenant or create a situation that he may vacate the house. 16. Here in the present case also, the defendant No.1 in order to nullify the condition of the sale deed in respect of use and drawing the water is, creating obstruction in obtaining the electricity connection, therefore, the word 'occupier' cannot be given a restriction, meaning in order to deny an electricity connection to the plaintiff by defendant No.2. 17. The issue No.1 in respect of right has been answered in favour of the plaintiff, which has not been challenged by the defendant No.1. 17. The issue No.1 in respect of right has been answered in favour of the plaintiff, which has not been challenged by the defendant No.1. The first appellate court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff by directing the defendant no.2, i.e., electricity distribution company to provide the electricity connection, but the defendant No.2 has not preferred any appeal and the defendant No.1 is not challenging the right of plaintiff, therefore, the present judgment passed by appellate court cannot be set aside at the instance of plaintiff as she cannot create hurdle or create a situation in order to deny the right of the plaintiff to draw the water from well through pump. Hence, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 18. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.