RSA No.4074 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.4074 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:November 11, 2009 Shiam Singh ...........Appellant Versus Paramjit Singh and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for the appellant ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Paramjit Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sunam vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Additional District Judge Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 3.8.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant No.1. The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District Judge in paras 2 to 6 of its judgment, read as under:- “2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that appellant/plaintiff brought a suit seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendants to shift the electric motor of 5 HP with electric connection No. AP/203 back to the land comprised in RSA No.4074 of 2009 (O&M) 2 khasra no.268//4(8-0) where the same was previously installed as the same has been got illegally shifted by the defendant/respondent no.1 from the said land in connivance with defendants/respondents no. 2 to 4. The appellant/plaintiff alleged that he and his brothers Shamsher Singh and Pritpal Singh were co-owners in the khewat no.609 and they were in exclusive possession of the land comprised in khatauni no.718. The electric connection No. AP/203 had been installed in khasra no.268//4(8- 0) since long. The electric motor and connection had been got installed by the father of the appellant/plaintiff and his uncle Pritam Singh jointly. The original number of the said connection was BR/504. Since Bant Singh, father of the appellant/plaintiff and Pritam Singh were the cousin brothers, therefore, as per rules of the electricity board, the connection could be got installed only in the name of one of them. The connection was got installed in the name of Pritam Singh s/o Kesar Singh but the father of the appellant/plaintiff was owner to the extent of ½ share in the said connection. However, the defendant/respondent no.1 got the said electric connection transferred in his name in connivance with the officials of the electricity board and the connection number was also changed. The electric connection was transferred in the name of defendant/respondent no.1 by the electricity board without any intimation to the appellant/plaintiff and his brothers or their father. The father of the plaintiff had been using the said electric motor and connection to the extent of his share during his life time and after his death, the plaintiff and his brothers have RSA No.4074 of 2009 (O&M) 3 stepped into his shoes and they have been using the electric connection and depositing the electricity charges. The appellant/plaintiff further alleged that the expenses for getting installed the electric motor and connection were suffered by his father Bant Singh and uncle Pritam Singh jointly in equal shares. The room wherein the motor is installed was got constructed by his father at his own expenses. However, the defendant/respondent No.1 has now got the said electric motor and connection shifted to some other land in connivance with defendants/respondents no.2 to 4. 4. It would be proper to mention here that initially the appellant/plaintiff brought a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants/respondents from shifting the electric connection to some electric motor and connection were shifted and due to this reason, the appellant/plaintiff amended the plaint so as to claim the relief of mandatory injunction. 5. Pursuant to the receipt of notice of the suit the defendants/respondents appeared. The defendant/respondent No.1 filed written statement stating therein that the electric motor and connection were got installed by Pritam Singh at his own expenses. The father of the plaintiff was not having concern with the electric motor or electric connection. Later on, the defendant/respondent no.1 had purchased the electric motor and connection from Pritam Singh. He had got the electric connection transferred in his name as per rules and regulations of the electricity board. Otherwise also, he is a legal heir of Pritam RSA No.4074 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Singh being his real brother. Since he is the owner of the electric motor and connection, he was having right to get the same shifted to the place of his choice. The defendant no.1/respondent no.1 has denied that Pritam Singh was cousin of father of the plaintiff. The remaining allegations regarding connection having been got installed jointly by Bant Singh and Pritam Singh have also been denied. He also denied that the electric motor and connection were being used by Bant Singh and after his death by the plaintiff and his brothers. The remaining allegations of the plaint have been denied. The preliminary objections regarding locus-standi, cause of action, estoppel, non-joinder of necessary parties, limitation etc. have also been raised. 6. The defendants/respondents no. 2 to4 have filed their separate written statement stating therein that as per their record, the defendant/respondent no.1 is the consumer of Electricity Board. At the time of transferring of the said electric motor and connection in the name of defendant/respondent no.1, the appellant/plaintiff did not raise any objection. They have further pleaded that on 24.6.2003, the defendant/respondent No.1 moved an application for shifting of electric connection as the bore well where the said connection was installed, had been damaged. He made a request for shifting the electric connection to the place where the new well had been dug by him. The electric connection has been shifted as per rules and regulations of the board. The defendant/respondent no. 2 to 4 have also been raised preliminary objections regarding locus-standi and maintainability of suit etc. RSA No.4074 of 2009 (O&M) 5 7. The appellant/plaintiff filed the replication controverting the averments made in the written statements and reiterating those of the plaint” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether plaintiff has the right of use in motor connection bearing no.A/CP-203?OPP 2.Whether plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for?OPP 3.Whether suit is not maintainable?OPD 4.Whether plaintiff has no locus-standi to file present suit?OPD 4-A.Whether plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP 5. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction that respondent No.1 be restrained from transferring the electric motor connection installed in the land of the plaintiff and his brother to another place. In fact, the suit land was jointly owned by Pritam Singh along with other co-sharers . Pritam Singh vide sale deed dated 10.12.1990 sold his share out of the suit land to Shiam Singh, Ram Singh and Balwinder Singh along with all joint rights of watt, khal trees, turn of canal water and motor 5HP along with all joint right of passage in equal share. Thus, defendant No.1 along with others had purchased the share of Pritam Singh vide sale deed dated 10.12.1990. The certified copy of the sale deed was placed on record. Although the same was not tendered in evidence, but a RSA No.4074 of 2009 (O&M) 6 copy of the sale deed has been placed on record by the appellant as Annexure A1. A perusal of the sale deed reveals that Pritam Singh was not exclusive owner of the motor in question but had rather sold his joint right in the Motor 5HP along with watt ,khal etc, to defendant No.1 and his brothers. Had the vendor- Pritam Singh been exclusive owner of the motor in question, he would have mentioned the said fact in the sale deed and have sold the exclusive rights in the electric motor in question to the vendees. In these circumstances, defendant No.1 could not claim the exclusive ownership to the electric motor in question and, consequently could not get the same transferred in his name or shift it from one place to another without the consent of the other co-sharers. The learned District Judge had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge November 11, 2009 arya