JUDGMENT Mr. Amit Rawal, J.:- The present Regular Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of fact and law whereby suit of the respondent-plaintiffs for permanent injunction seeking restraint against the defendants from disconnecting the electric connection bearing No.B1-510 installed on tubewell mark ‘X’ shown red in colour in the site plan situated in the land bearing khasra nos.278/38, 277/38, with an alternative prayer of mandatory injunction has been decreed by the trial Court and affirmed in appeal. 2. The plaintiff sought the aforementioned relief on the premise that he alongwith defendants no.1 and 2 were in possession on separate parcels of land measuring 34 kanals 2 marlas shown in yellow, blue and green colour in the site plan. Both the parties installed the tubewell jointly as referred to above in the year 1969 but the electric connection was issued in the name of defendant no.1 being the head of the family. All the parties had been irrigating the respective parcels of land in their possession out of joint land measuring 34 kanals 2 marlas and paying the electricity charges till the electric supply to the tubewell was made charge free. Defendant no.1 by taking undue benefit threatened to shift the electric connection giving cause to file the suit. 3. Defendants no.1-A to 1-E and 2 were proceeded ex parte whereas defendant nos.1-F, 3 and 4 filed the separate written statements and contested the suit. Defendant no.1 stated that plaintiff and defendants were in separate possession as per the site plan. Installation of the tubewell by the plaintiffs, much less its expenses, were emphatically denied. Defendant no.1 was granted electric connection being the employee of PSEB, therefore, the plaintiff and defendant no.2 have no right, title or interest with the same. The tubewell at mark ‘X’ of defendant no.1 had become in dilapidated condition and in April 1999, defendant no.1 installed another tubewell at point ‘L’ as shown green in site plan and shifted the electric connection in dispute and electric motor to other tubewell and since then had been irrigating the agricultural land in their possession as no objection was raised regarding shifting. 4. 4. Defendants no.3 and 4 stated that it was defendant no.1 who submitted an application for obtaining the electric connection and endorsed the stand of defendant no.1 regarding the installation of a new bore of the tubewell at the distance about 30 yards from the old tubewell which was done after having received the report qua deposit of requisite charges. No threat was extended by the defendants. 5. The plaintiffs examined Gurmit Singh-plaintiff no.2 as PW1 and brought on record various evidence i.e. Ex.P1 to Ex.P6, receipt, jamabandi, aks-sijra etc. and defendants examined Ravinder Singh as DW1 and Bakhshish Singh as DW2. 6. The trial Court after noticing that defendant no.2 had different bore at one point of time shown in blue colour in the site plan, decreed the suit and the appeal laid before the Lower Appellate Court, was dismissed. 7. This appeal is pending in motion hearing since 2017. This Court while reserving the judgment on 13.03.2019 passed the following order:- “On 21.01.2019, this Court passed the following order:- Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the arguing counsel is not feeling well and prays for short accommodation to address the arguments. This is the sixth adjournment on behalf of the appellants. Adjourned to 13.03.2019. Last opportunity is granted, failing which, the appeal shall be heard and decided on merits Even on the second call, there is no representation on behalf of the appellants. Judgment reserved.” 8. It is in these circumstance, the appeal is being decided. 9. As per the memorandum of appeal, it was alleged that clear cut evidence on record established that tubewell connection was installed by one Darshan Singh in his name proved through electricity bills. The plaintiffs had no right, title or interest in the suit property, therefore, injunction granted is wholly vitiated. The main tubewell connection belonged to forefathers of the appellants and as well as respondents whereas Mohan Singh and Sohan Singh were irrigating their land through a separate bore mentioned at point ‘M’ in the map. Even if the electric connection was shifted about 40-50 yards away from the previous place by Darshan Singh, exclusive tubewell was got installed at point ‘X’ shown in red colour was shifted to the place at point ‘L’ shown in green colour in the site plan. The entire expenses of shifting and installation were borne by the appellants and their family. The entire expenses of shifting and installation were borne by the appellants and their family. There was no tubewell connection till February 2002. 10. I have gone through the judgments of both the Courts below and of the view that there is hardly any substance in the appeal for the simple reason that appellant-defendant no.1-F/Ravinder Singh while stepping into witness box in cross-examination admitted that old tubewell and well were situated in the land of Mohan Singh and Sohan Singh whereas the land of their uncle was irrigated by them from the said tubewell and he had given the land to his brothers Darshan Singh and Gurmeet Singh in equal share. Thus, for all intents and purposes, tubewell being part of khasra nos.278/38 and 277/38 has been proved on record. As per the revenue record, Mohan Singh, Sohan Singh, Bakhshish Singh and Darshan Singh were co-owners of the land. The site plan Ex.P1 proved the location of the tubewell and passbook connection Ex.P2 that tubewell was installed upon the aforementioned khasra numbers. Jamabandi for the year 1997-98, Ex.P4 is the testimony regarding khasra numbers. It is in these circumstances, the Courts below injuncted the defendants from interfering. 11. The findings of facts and law, in my view, cannot be said to be suffering from illegality and perversity. No ground for interference is made out. 12. Resultantly, the regular second appeal is dismissed.