M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a defendants' second appeal against the concurrent findings of the courts below. The parties to this appeal will be referred to by the position assigned to them in the trial court. ( 2 ) THE respondent-plaintiff filed O. S. 74/68 in the Court of the Munsiff at bidar seeking declaration of title to the suit-well claiming that the same was situated in Sy. No. 277 of Mirkhar village, Bidar Taluk; that he was compelled to approach the Court for a declaration inasmuch as the deputy Commissioner, Bidar, had directed the electricity Board not to give electricity to him unless he obtained a declaration from the competent Civil Court regarding his title to the well. It. was the plaintiff's case that he had purchased the land on 22-1-1968 by a registered sale deed from the previous owner one Sangramappa who was the undisputed owner of Sy. No. 277; that since the purchase in 1968 he was using the well water for cultivating a part of the land by irrigation; that he had, in fact, installed an oil engine to pump out the water; that defendants' 1 and 2 had now set up a claim claiming the well situate in Sy. No. 278 as belonging to them. Therefore, the suit for declaration and injunction restraining defendants from interfering with his right to the well, its possession and use of its water. ( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 1, 2 and 3 resisted the suit mainly on the ground that the well was situated in Sy. No. 278 and 'the plaintiff's vendor being an influential person had made a fictitious sale and set up the plaintiff to file the suit in order to claim the well. They also pleaded that the plaintiff being a wealthy and influential person had installed the oil engine in the suit well by force; that the 1st defendant had given a complaint to the Police in that behalf; that defendants 4 and 5 had no concern in Sy. No. 278 and the well in dispute and that they are mere supporters of defendant-1. The defendants denied the accuracy of the plaint-map showing the well as situated in Sy. No. 277. However, the defendants admitted that the plaintiff had applied for supply of electrical energy to the suit well to the Electricity board. No. 278 and the well in dispute and that they are mere supporters of defendant-1. The defendants denied the accuracy of the plaint-map showing the well as situated in Sy. No. 277. However, the defendants admitted that the plaintiff had applied for supply of electrical energy to the suit well to the Electricity board. The defendants further alleged in the written statement that the plaintiff being an influential man got an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 14-2-1971 in the absence of the defendants, directing the Electricity Board to get the exact location of the well determined by the Assistant Superintendent of Land Records who submitted a report on 22-8-1968 along with the map showing that the well is situated in Sy. No. 278. Accepting that report, the Electricity Board gave electric connection to defendant1 that the map and village map relied upon by the plaintiff were incorrect; that the well was situated in Sy. No. 277 and that they were owners. Therefore, they prayed that the plaintiff's suit be dismissed with costs. On the pleadings summarised as above, the trial Court framed the following two issues for trial: -1. Whether the plaintiff is the exclusive owner and in possession of the land in Sy. No. 277, to the extent of 8 acres, towards west along with the well as shown by him in the visual map? 2. Whether the well is situated in the land in Sy. No. 278 as averred by the defendants, it is exclusively owned by them? ( 4 ) IN the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself and three other witnesses and got marked 7 documents. The defendants, in the defence, examined three witnesses, i. e. , the defendant himself, the neighbouring owner and the Assistant Superintendent of land Records and got marked as many as 14 documents. ( 5 ) ON appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court came to the conclusion that it would not place much reliance on ext. D-4, the spot Survey Plan prepared by P. W. 1 the Assistant superintendent of Land Records showing the well as being situated in sy. No. 278 inasmuch as the same person had issued earlier a certificate and other documents which indicated that the well is situated in Sy. No. 277. D-4, the spot Survey Plan prepared by P. W. 1 the Assistant superintendent of Land Records showing the well as being situated in sy. No. 278 inasmuch as the same person had issued earlier a certificate and other documents which indicated that the well is situated in Sy. No. 277. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendants 1, 2 and 3 filed an appeal in the Court of the Civil Judge, Bidar in Regular appeal No. 75/73. The Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, this second appeal. ( 7 ) THE only ground urged before me in this second appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the courts below reached the conclusion they did totally ignoring the evidence both documentary and oral adduced by the defendants in support of their case and therefore, the judgments and decrees under appeal were opposed to law because material evidence placed before the Court had not been considered. Elaborating this contention, the learned counsel pointed out that ext. D-4 has been ignored by the courts below and that the said Ext. D-4 clearly established that the well is situated in Sy. No. 2,78 and further that the plaintiff had encroached into part of that Sy. No. 278. It is relevant to state that Ext. D-4 is the map prepared by D. W. 1, the Assistant superintendent of Land Records. But, it is not correct to contend that the courts below have not considered this document. In fact, from the judgments of both the Courts below, it is seen that all the documentary evidence and oral evidence led by the parties have been considered and discussed. But, ext. D-4 has been rejected by the lower Appellate Court as spot survey plan was prepared behind the back of the plaintiff. After considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, the lower Appellate Court had the following to say:"the present maps drawn by D. W. 1 are at variance. Having regard to the situation and conduct involved in the case, I have to hold that these maps Ex. D-4 and D-5 and d-11 are not worthy of belief. Having regard to the evidence and the circumstances involved in the case, i have held that the plaintiff's case has been duly proved. Having regard to the situation and conduct involved in the case, I have to hold that these maps Ex. D-4 and D-5 and d-11 are not worthy of belief. Having regard to the evidence and the circumstances involved in the case, i have held that the plaintiff's case has been duly proved. " ( 8 ) SIMILARLY, the trial Court held discussing the evidence of D. W. 1 that Exts. D-4 and D-5 prepared by him could not be accepted as of a witness who was technically qualified as he did not depose as to how he located the boundary stones, the encroachment and the location of the well in preparing the said exhibits. Therefore, it rejected his evidence though he was technically qualified and could be accepted as an expert witness. The trial Court considered the discrepancy in some of the documents of the plaintiff which had shown the well to be situated in sy. No. 277. But, it has however noticed tha,t the report accompanying ext. D-4 had been registered in the revision Book in the Department of survey Settlement. But, that had become final, it has held, had not been proved by the defendants. Whatever the reasoning given by the trial Court, the fact remains that the evidence on which the learned Counsel had relied upon has been considered by it. As the two courts of fact have come to that conclusion, that it is possible to come to a different conclusion by this Court is not a ground for interfering with the findings of fact given by the 1st appellate Court unless it is demonstrated that the Courts below have come to the conclusion on totally perverse reasoning and unwarranted by the evidence on record. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the courts below. But, before parting with the case, I have to deal with one other matter. When the appellant had been heard earlier, the Appellant took time to file an application for appointment of a Commissioner so that the two survey numbers could be surveyed by an impartial Commissioner and the well located on the basis of the records available in the Department oi Land records and Survey Settlement pertaining to the village. The application has been made (I. A. III) under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The application has been made (I. A. III) under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. That provision is available only for leading additional evidence. Having regard to the amendment made in Karnataka to Rule 27 of Order 41, the applicant-appellant has not made out any ground for 'allowing his application inasmuch as why this was not done in the trial court or the first Appellate Court is not disclosed. Additional evidence even if it be in the form of a Commissioner's report can be taken only if the conditions imposed for receiving such evidence under Rule 27, Order 41 are satisfied. Appellant, in the application has not even attempted to satisfy those conditions. For this reason, the application is to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. --- *** --- .