Disposed¶8

The Junior Engineer v. Ganesan

Madras HC3 Jul 2025SA/707/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board; electric poles uprooted in Gaja cyclone; poles re-erected in alternate land; high tension wires redrawn; mandatory injunction claim rendered infructuous; Section 100 CPC second appeal disposed of without admission; VAO report Sembodai Village Vedaranyam; letter dated 26.06.2025 with photographs; no order as to costs; O.S.No. 64 of 2002 District Munsif Nagapattinam; A.S.No. 35 of 2006 Sub Court Nagapattinam; S.A.No. 707 of 2010; C.V. Karthikeyan J.; Madras High Court; judgment dated 03.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal disposed of, recording that the electric poles and high tension wires now stand in an alternate land and do not affect the respondents' lands; no order as to costs. ¶8

The Junior Engineer Vs Ganesan — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second Appeal disposed of, recording that the electric poles and high tension wires now stand in an alternate land and do not affect the respondents' lands; no order as to costs.

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a mandatory injunction directing removal of the electric poles and high tension wires from their lands at Sembodai Village, Vedaranyam Taluk, and damages of Rs.10,000/- for cutting away the mango trees, with suit costs. +1 more

¶2

Ratio / Principle

On the undisputed position that the electric poles in the suit schedule lands were uprooted in the Gaja cyclone and have been re-erected in an alternate land with the high tension wires drawn through those poles, not affecting the respondents' lands, the plaintiffs' grievance does not survive; exercising the power under the Code to examine issues of fact in a Second Appeal, the Court recorded this fact and disposed of the Second Appeal, with no order as to costs.

¶8

Key takeaways

As factual foundation, the Court placed on record the Village Administrative Officer's report that the poles had been uprooted in the Gaja cyclone, the Board's conscious decision to erect the poles in an alternate land, the affirmation by learned counsel for the respondents that the poles are not in the plaintiffs' lands, and the sixth respondent's letter dated 26.06.2025 with photographs confirming that the poles and high tension wires do not affect the respondents' lands directly or indirectly.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (C.V. Karthikeyan, J., 03.07.2025), S.A. No. 707 of 2010 under Section 100 CPC, not yet admitted, disposed of. Officers of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Junior Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer, O&M, Nagapattinam region) appealed against concurrent decrees: O.S.No. 64 of 2002 (District Munsif, Nagapattinam, decree dated 12.12.2005) and A.S.No. 35 of 2006 (Sub Court, Nagapattinam, decree dated 15.09.2006), whereby the plaintiff (since deceased, LRs substituted) had obtained a mandatory injunction to remove electric poles and high tension wires from his vacant land at Sembodai Village, Vedaranyam Taluk, plus Rs.10,000/- damages for felled mango trees. During pendency the VAO, Sembodai, reported that the poles had been uprooted in the Gaja cyclone; the Board consciously resolved to re-erect the poles on alternate land and draw the high tension wires through them. Both sides affirmed, and the sixth respondent by letter dated 26.06.2025 with photographs confirmed, that the poles and wires do not affect the respondents' lands directly or indirectly. Holding that the plaintiffs' grievance does not survive, the Court recorded the fact and disposed of the Second Appeal, with no order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.07.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

S.A.No. 707 of 2010

¶6

The Junior Engineer (Operation and Maintenance) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Kariyapattinam, Vedaraniyam Taluk

¶7

The Assistant Executive Engineer (Operation and Maintenance) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vedaraniyam, Nagapattinam District.

¶8

The Executive Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

¶9

Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District.

¶10

... Defendants/Appellants/Appellants

¶11

Vs.

¶12

Ganesan (died)

¶13

... Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent

¶14

Kunjammal

¶15

Kanthasamy

¶16

Subramaniyan

¶17

Selvanathan

¶18

Dhanabalan ... Respondents/Respondents/Respondents

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

¶21

PRAYER

¶22

PRAYER : This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.09.2006 made in A.S.No. 35 of 2006 on the file of Sub-Court, Nagapattinam, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 12.12.2005 made in O.S.No. 64 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Nagapattinam.

¶23

¶24

For Appellants : Mrs. J.Hemalatha Gajapathy Standing Counsel

¶25

For 1^st Respondent : Died

¶26

For RR 2 to 6 : Mr. A.Sundaravathanan

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The defendants, who could be collectively called the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at Nagapattinam, in O.S.No. 64 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Nagapattinam are the appellants herein.

¶29

The respondent, who had died pending the Second Appeal and

¶30

whose legal representatives are brought on record, had filed the suit seeking a direction against the appellants herein/defendants in the nature of mandatory injunction to remove the electric poles which had been put up

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

¶33

in the lands of the appellants and the high tension wires which has been struck across it and also for damages for a sum of Rs.10,000/- for cutting away the mango trees in the lands of the plaintiffs/respondents and for costs of the suit. The suit schedule property was described as vacant land at Sembodai Village, Vedaranyam Taluk in Nagapattinam District.

¶34

In the written statement filed by the appellants before the trial Court, it had been contended that there was objection was never raised on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs at the time when the electric poles were put up and which actually had been put up in the year 1972 itself. It had been further stated that the wires have also been drawn even at that particular point of time. It had been further stated that the high tension wires were drawn in the year 1980. It had therefore been contended that the suit should be dismissed.

¶35

On appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence, the District Munsif Court at Nagapattinam, by Judgment dated 12.12.2005 had decreed the suit. The appellants had then filed A.S.No. 35 of 2006 before the Sub Court at Nagapattinam and by Judgment dated 15.09.2006, the Appeal Suit was also dismissed. The appellants have then filed the present Second Appeal.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

¶38

The Second Appeal had not yet been admitted. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants/Electricity Board had forwarded to this Court a report of the Village Administrative Officer at Sembodai Village in Vedaranyam stating that the electric poles in the suit schedule lands had been uprooted during the Gaja cyclone and therefore, the appellants had taken a concious decision to erect the electric poles in an alternate land and to draw the high tension wires through those poles. It is therefore contended that the grievance raised by the plaintiffs do not survive any more and there is no cause for the respondents/plaintiffs to maintain the reliefs sought in the suit.

¶39

This fact is also affirmed by the learned counsel for the respondents, who also contended that the electric poles have now been erected in an alternate land and the high tension wires have also been drawn and that the poles are not in the lands of the respondents/plaintiffs. Photographs to this effect have also been appended along with the report.

¶40

The sixth respondent / Dhanabalan, who had been subsequently impleaded owing to the death of the sole respondent, had also given a letter on 26.06.2025 confirming the above fact that the poles and the high

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

¶43

tension wires drawn do not affect either directly or indirectly the lands of

¶44

the respondents. He had also enclosed photographs reflecting the same.

¶45