- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court in A.S.No.359 of 2002, dated 29.09.2004 in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.1167 of 1992 dated 27.03.1997 in dismissing the suit.
(2.) THE appellants are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case before the trial Court would be as follows: The suit properties are situated at Senthamnagalam Pachchudayanpatti village. The plaintiff purchased the said property for a consideration of Rs.72,000/- from one S.P.Perumal and others on 05.11.1992. The said Perumal and others had the title to the suit property by virtue of the sale deed dated 22.01.1985 obtained from one Chinnasamy and others for a sum of Rs.31,500/-. The said vendors Chinnasamy and others got the property from one Jeganathan and Ramachandran and others. The first defendant had purchased the property through a sale deed dated 16.11.1988 for a sum of Rs.75,000/- including - right in the suit well, 5 HP electric motor and the electricity connection obtained for the said well. The plaintiff has - right in the suit well, the electric motor and the electricity connection. The sale deed obtained in favour of the plaintiff on 05.11.1992 would confer - right in the suit well, electricity connection No. A-650 and the electric motor, namely, Balasubramanian motor bearing No.13905 and the pumpset installed in the said well. The plaintiff and his predecessor in title and the first defendant were accustomed to bale out water from the suit well on alternate days. The defendants had claimed exclusive right in the electric motor pumpset installed in the suit well due to some inimical attitude had with the plaintiff. Having said so, the defendants had restrained the plaintiff and thereby caused inconvenience to the plaintiff from irrigating nanja land measuring 0.50 acre and the punja land measuring 0.15 acre for the cultivation of chillies from 15.11.1992 onwards. The explanation regarding the right of the plaintiff was not heeded by the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff had approached the court to seek for a declaration that he is entitled to - right in the suit well and the 5 HP electric motor installed with the pumpset bearing No.13905 and in the electricity connection and also entitled to bale out water from the said well with the help of the electric motor on alternate days and also to grant permanent injunction against the defendants from in any way enjoying such right by the plaintiff in the suit well, electric motor pumpset and the electricity connection and for costs. The case of the defendants would be as follows:- The claim of the plaintiff that she is entitled to - right in the suit well and 5 HP electric motor and electricity connection is correct. However, the electric motor in the name of Balasubramanian bearing No.13905 installed in the electricity connection No. A-650 was not available at any time. The previous vendors of the plaintiff were not co-operative with the first defendant and therefore, the first defendant herself had installed electric motor and had deepened the eastern part of the well with her own expenses and entered lease agreement with one Pandian and was in enjoyment of the suit well with the electric motor and the electricity connection exclusively. The plaintiff after her purchase on 05.11.1992 asked the defendants that she would be given only - right in the electricity connection and the electric motor pumpset and she had relinquished the same for pecuniary consideration and accordingly on 07.12.1992, there was a Muchalika of compromise and accordingly, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was agreed to be given to the plaintiff and in consideration thereof, the defendants are entitled to get new electricity connections and installed the motor for themself. Apart from that, it was agreed that the plaintiff was given right in the northern 'Kamalavari' and right in the western half of the well and she can deepen the western part of the well and install oil engine on the said western part of the well and accordingly, the parties are enjoying the suit property. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff with the evil advice of the persons, who are not interested in the welfare of both parties and the defendants are much prejudiced. The plaintiff did not irrigate the nanja field or the chilly field from the water in the well. There is no cause of action for the suit. Therefore, the suit has to be dismissed with costs.
(3.) THE trial Court had framed necessary issues and entered trial. After appraising the evidence, it had come to the conclusion of dismissing the suit with costs. Aggrieved upon the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred appeal before the first appellate court in A.S.No.359 of 2002 and the first appellate Court had, after hearing the arguments of both sides, come to the conclusion of setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, and allowed the appeal and thus the suit filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court was decreed. Aggrieved upon the reversal judgment passed by the first appellate court, the defendants have preferred this Second Appeal. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the second appellant died and the appellants 3 to 6 were impleaded as legal representatives of the second appellant / second defendant.;