8.The respondent had examined himself as P.W.1 and one Subbammal as P.W.2 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4. The appellant/defendant on his side had not only examined himself but had examined 4 witnesses and marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.23. The learned District Munsif, relying upon the documents filed on the side of the respondent and taking into consideration the oral evidence adduced on both sides had decreed the suit in respect of declaration and permanent inunction and dismissed the suit in respect to mandatory injunction. The respondent had not challenged the portion of the Decree that against him, however, the appellant/defendant has filed A.S.No.41 of 2007 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Gudiyattam. The learned Appellate Court relying on the recitals in Ex.A.1 came to the conclusion that the Electricity Service Connection bearing No.9 (now Service Connection No.209) was stated to be installed in Survey No.202/2 of Modikuppam Village. However, Survey No.9 is in Survey No.203/3 as per the cross examination of D.W.1. The learned Judge therefore concluded that the Service Connection Number had been wrongly mentioned in Ex.A.1 – Partition Deed i.e., instead of Survey No.203/3, the same has been described as Survey No.202/2, however, even according to D.W.1, Service Connection No.9 (New Service Connection No.209) is situate only in Survey No.203/3. Therefore, the right which has been conferred upon the respondent has his right to Service Connection No.209 situate at Survey No.203/3. The Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court.
