Judgement Appeal from a decree of the High Court (July 22, 1892) affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Madura (May 2, 1889) dismissing the appellants suit with costs. The only question in the case was whether the appellants were entitled to obstruct the flow of water through two defined channels by building a wall or dam across the same. The High Court granted leave to appeal in the following terms "There seems to be a point of law, which, however, does not appear to have been argued here; and it is therefore hereby certified that, as regards the value of the subject-matter and the nature of the questions involved, the case fulfils the requirements of sect. 596, Act XIV. of 1892." Mayne, for the appellants, was in the course of his argument called upon by their Lordships to state the substantial question of law involved in the case and fulfilling the requirements of sect. 596. The respondents did not appear. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by Law. Rep. 29 Ind. App. 38 ( 1901- 1902) Karuppanan Servai V. Srinivasan Chetti 156 LORD MACNAGHTEN. Their Lordships are of opinion that this appeal must be dismissed. There is no question of law. The facts have .been found by two Courts; and, there being two concurrent findings of fact, the decree that was pronounced by the Lower Court, and affirmed by the High Court, must be sustained. In their Lordships opinion the High Court ought not to have given leave to appeal in this case. The Code is clear upon the point. The words are "Where the decree appealed from affirms the decision of the Court, immediately below the Court passing such decree, the appeal must involve some substantial question of law." Now, in the present case, Mr. Mayne has had considerable difficulty in stating what the question of law is, and the Court that gave the leave to appeal seems to have had equal difficulty, because they say in their order—" There seems to be a point of law, which, however, does not appear to have been argued here"; and upon that ground they have given leave to appeal. That appears to their Lordships to be utterly contrary to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. In their Lordships opinion no leave ought ever to have been given; and the appeal must be dismissed. That appears to their Lordships to be utterly contrary to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. In their Lordships opinion no leave ought ever to have been given; and the appeal must be dismissed. Their Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed. The respondents must have their costs up to the lodgment of their case.