The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lower Appellate Court's finding of the respondents fully proving their case with cogent and reliable evidence led to the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction.

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1. Having remained unsuccessful before both the Courts below, the appellant-plaintiff-Nanak Singh has approached this Court by way of instant Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, affirming that of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Gurdaspur whereby the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction has been dismissed.

2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant-plaintiff Nanak Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering in any manner in the peaceful, exclusive cultivating possession of the plaintiff over the land measuring 7 Kanals 1 Marla by forcibly and illegally carving out any water channel, through the suit land comprised in Khewat No.1, Khatoni No.1, Rect. No.17, Killa No. 18(7-1) situated in Village Thakur Sandhu, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur as per jamabandi for the year 2006-07. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he was in actual, physical and cultivating possession over the suit land and the defendants had no right, title or interest over the same. Upon notice, the defendants/respondents appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement. It was pleaded that earlier a water channel was in existence in the suit land, regarding which litigation was contested by the plaintiff up to this Court. The plaintiff lost the case and water channel on the suit land, was ordered to be restored. The appellant filed the present suit against the legal representatives of the persons who were party in the previous litigation. It was stated that a scheme water channel was in existence in the suit land, but it was demolished illegally by the plaintiff. Against this, Joginder Kaur (mother of defendant No.1) moved an application to Sub Divisional Officer, Canal, Madhopur Division for restoration of water channel, which was allowed vide order dated 20.05.2008 and was upheld in appeal by Superintending Engineer, UBDC Circle, Amritsar vide order dated 15.07.2008 and also by this Court in CWP No. 8322 of 2009 vide order dated 01.09.2010.

3. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed issues and after appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, came to the exclusion that the water channel in the suit land had been ordered to be restored by the canals authorities and by this Court and, therefore, the present suit had been filed to create hindrance in the execution of the order passed by the canal authorities. Accordingly, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.12.2013 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff-appellant took the matter in appeal and the lower Appellate Court finding no illegality or informity in the findings of the trial Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 08.09.2015. Hence the instant regular second appeal by the appellants claiming the following substantial questions of law:-

“(a). Whether the findings of the Courts below are based upon misleading of evidence?

(b). Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are wrong, illegal, unjust and perverse?”

3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the judgments and decrees with his assistance.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has made an attempt to persuade this Court to re-appreciate the evidence led by the parties before the trial Court to differ with the opinion of the Courts below which is not permissible in view of the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Courts below had recorded a concurrent finding of fact that actually there was existing a schemee Khal in Rect. No.17 Killa No. 18 on its northern side boundary which was leading to the land of Karnail Singh through the land of Joginder Kaur and Piara Singh etc. Joginder Kaur, mother of defendant No.1 moved an a