CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) THIS second Appeal has come up for admission after notice and after calling for records. It is a defendant's second Appeal having suffered the-reversal of the Judgment and decree by the lower appellant Court. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to this appeal may bestated and they are as follows: - plaintiff a widow aged nearly 85 years as on today, presented a suit in O. S. 178 of 1978 in the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Puttur, dakshina Kannada seeking inter alia following reliefs: (I) for a declaration that the plaintiff is the full and absolute owner of plaint 'a' schedule property; and that defendant should surrender possession of plaint 'b' Schedule property; (II) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men and any others claiming through the defendant, from entering into any portion of plaint 'a' schedule property; further preventing the defendant or his persons claiming under or through them dumping of anything over the property comprised in plaint 'a' Schedule property or letting out dirty water into the same and further for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to close the door placed at the southern end of the new building built up by them and demolish the corridor in the south and also directing the defendant to reconstruct the stone boundary wall got demolished by them, along the SD lines 50 and portion of 90 of Survey No. 7/28- a of Uppinangady village and also to deepen the rain water channel. By an amendment that was a relief asked probably for mandatory injunction to remove the new dambe placed by the defendant to the southern roof of Vasantha Mantap or in the alternative to direct the defendants to make such arrangements in the said dambe so that no rain water from the southern roof falls over the land of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of suit schedule 'a' and 'b' properties. Pith and substance of her case was that the defendant-temple, through its trustees, had encroached on the middle-east part of suit Schedule 'a' property comprised in Survey No. 7/28-A to an extent of one acre as described in suit Schedule 'b' property. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of suit schedule 'a' and 'b' properties. Pith and substance of her case was that the defendant-temple, through its trustees, had encroached on the middle-east part of suit Schedule 'a' property comprised in Survey No. 7/28-A to an extent of one acre as described in suit Schedule 'b' property. The defendant-temple through its trustees resisted the suit reliefs denying all of the plaint averments stating that there was no encroachment of the property of the plaintiff; that whatever was built was built to the knowledge of the plaintiff; at no earlier point of time than the issuance of a legal notice had she objected to the construction; that water pipes, thombe and other constructions put up by the trustees in the temple-property providing for Kalyan Mantap and Vasantha Mantap were within the property of the temple and the plaintiff could not make a grievance of it. On such pleadings as many as 17 issues were framed:1. Whether U. Damodara Pai is empowered to file the suit as power of attorney holder? 2. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint 'a' Schedule property? ( 3 ) WHETHER the defendants encroached upon the portion of the plaint 'a' schedule property detailed in the plaint 'b' Schedule property? ( 4 ) WHETHER the plaintiff is entitled to the declaratory relief in respect of the -plaint 'b' Schedule property? ( 5 ) WHETHER the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the plaint 'b' Schedule property? ( 6 ) WHETHER the plaintiff is entitkd to the permanent injunction sought for? ( 7 ) WHETHER the defendants are liable to close the door wall and deepen the rain water channel ? And whether the plaintiff is entitled for in para-XIV (C) of the plaint ? ( 8 ) WHETHER the defendants are liable to provide valley (Dambe) to the western roof of the Vasantha Mantapa and are liable to remove the water pipe placed in the plaint 'a' Schedule? And is the plaintiff entitled to the mandatory injunction sought for in para-XIV (d) of the plaint? ( 9 ) WHETHER the defendants are liable to pay the future mesne profits to the plaintiff? If so, at what rate? ( 10 ) WHETHER the suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction is barred by limitation, laches and acquiscence? And is the plaintiff entitled to the mandatory injunction sought for in para-XIV (d) of the plaint? ( 9 ) WHETHER the defendants are liable to pay the future mesne profits to the plaintiff? If so, at what rate? ( 10 ) WHETHER the suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction is barred by limitation, laches and acquiscence? ( 11 ) WHAT is the correct description of the boundaries of the plaint 'a' Schedule property? ( 12 ) WHETHER the frame of the suit is not proper? ( 13 ) WHETHER the Court-fee paid is not correct ? ( 14 ) WHAT relief? ( 15 ) WHETHER plaintiff proves that the defendants kept valley to the southern vasantha Mantapa from east to west and allowed the rainy water to fall over the path way of the plaintiffs compound? ( 16 ) WHETHER the plaintiff is entitled for removal of dambe? ( 17 ) WHETHER the suit against defendants 2,4 and 5 as trustees is not maintainable? ( 18 ) WHETHER defendants, 2,4 and 5 are unnecessary parties to the above proceedings? on such issues framed and the evidence led by parties, oral and documentary, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to establish her title to the alleged encroached area or interferenes with her property mainly on the plea that in the plaint, the plaint schedule properties were not described with any boundaries to specifically identify them. This was despite the appointment of a Commissioner and the preparation of sketch according to the instructions given by the parties which formed part of the record and the Commissioner also was examined as witness. The aggrieved plaintiff presented the Appeal No. RA. 23/1987 in the court of the Civil Judge, Puttur, inter alia contending that the trial Court had erred in rejecting her case. The lower appellate Court on hearing the arguments of counsel for parties formulated the following points for determination in the light of the pleadings and the issues raised and the evidence led. (1) Whether plaintiff has established her title to plaint 'a' Schedule property? if so, whether she is entitled to declaration to that effect? (2) Whether plaintiff has established encroachment on plaint 'b' Schedule property by defendants? If so, whether she is entitled to possession of the encroached portion? (1) Whether plaintiff has established her title to plaint 'a' Schedule property? if so, whether she is entitled to declaration to that effect? (2) Whether plaintiff has established encroachment on plaint 'b' Schedule property by defendants? If so, whether she is entitled to possession of the encroached portion? (3) Whether plaintiff has proved that defendants are unlawfully entering on any portion of plaint 'a' Schedule property or causing any nuisance thereon by letting out dirty water? If so, is she entitled to permanent injunction against the defendants? (4) Whether plaintiff has proved that defendants had fixed door on southern side of their new building? If so, is she entitled to mandatory injunction? (5) Whether plaintiff has proved that defendants have constructed corridor by demolishing her compound wall along SD lines 58 and 90 Survey No. 7/28-A of Uppinangady, Kasba? (6) Whether plaintiff has proved that roof water of Vasantha Mantapa is falling on the suit property? If so, is she entitled to mandatory injunction against defendants for providing roof gutters? (7) Whether plaintiff has proved that defendants have unauthorisedly placed water pipe in 'a' Schedule property? if so, is she entitled to mandatory injunction? (8) Whether plaintiff has proved that defendants have fixed new roof gutter to the southern roof of Vasantha Mantap causing inconvenience to her property? If so, is she entitled to make proper arrangement so as to prevent that water falling on her property. (9) Whether defendants have proved that plaintiffs suit is barred by limitation? (10) Whether lower Court was justified in rejecting the reliefs claimed by plaintiff and dismissing her suit? the important points are points Nos. 2 and3. On these two points, the lower appellate court placing reliance partly on the sketch prepared by the Commissioner which was marked as Ex. P7 and the sale deed produced by the plaintiff as at Ex. (10) Whether lower Court was justified in rejecting the reliefs claimed by plaintiff and dismissing her suit? the important points are points Nos. 2 and3. On these two points, the lower appellate court placing reliance partly on the sketch prepared by the Commissioner which was marked as Ex. P7 and the sale deed produced by the plaintiff as at Ex. P4 came to the inescapable conclusion that the plaintiff was the owner of whole of Survey No. 7/28-A, Schedule 'a' property inter alia on the ground that the trial court erred in asking for proof of Exhibit P4 which was a sale deed - of the year 1937 and was, therefore protected by Section 90 of the evidence Act, i. e. , the appellate Court gave the benefit of the presumption arising under Section 90 of the Act to hold that the sale deed could be accepted as evidence without proof on account of it being more than 30 years old. As noticed by me earlier, the lower appellate Court placed reliance partly on the commissioner's sket and the report. But, however, declined to determine the extent of encroachment. But the factum of encroachment was held in favour of the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court also came to the conclusion that as the extent was not proved, the plaintiff would not be entitled to some of the reliefs. I may at this stage itself refer to this aspect which the learned counsel Sri K. Radhesh Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant in this Court, stressed. The argument was that the conclusion reached by the learned first appellate judge was contrary to his own finding of fact recorded is not well founded. All that the Court did was to refuse to give the plaintiff the mandatory injunction or even the injunction ordinarily prayed for in regard to the extent, as the extent of encroachment was not established. Because the extent was not determined, the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief which consequentially would have followed or her having established the title and encroachment. If understood in that manner the finding recorded is not contrary to the reliefs granted by the lower appellate Court setting aside the Judgment of the trial Court. For the reliefs given, cogent reasons have been in the succeeding paragraphs of the lower appellate courts, Judgment in dealing with points Nos. If understood in that manner the finding recorded is not contrary to the reliefs granted by the lower appellate Court setting aside the Judgment of the trial Court. For the reliefs given, cogent reasons have been in the succeeding paragraphs of the lower appellate courts, Judgment in dealing with points Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. In other respects, he has more or less concurred with the trial Court and refused to give all the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit came to be partly allowed with certain directions. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in this Court, Shri Prabhu, strenuously contended that some of the relief could not have been granted in the light of the facts recorded. For instance, the direction given in the nature of mandatory injunction that the pipes and the dambe should be restructured was a relief to which the plaintiff was not entitled to as it was held those were strictly erected within the property of the temple. Unfortunately, the learned counsel has misconstrued the direction. The direction has been given in regard to Dambe and the water pipes because though they are situate within the temple prescincts, undoubtedly the water from the Dambe and the pipes enter the land of the plaintiff and therefore her prayer for an injunction preventing the temple and its authorities to drain out dirty water in her area under Ex. P 4 which had clear demarcation of properties which she got and it was comprised in Survey No. 7/28-A. Similarly, on facts it was found that southern side of the temple compound was broken and a door opened which gave access to the temple Kalyanamantap and Vasanthaman- tap to members of the public or persons who were given licence to perform marriages in the man- tap, with the result that unauthorised persons began to enter the property comprised in Survey no. 7/28-A to have access through the southern door. That was a specific complaint in the plaint also and therefore he gave a direction that the door should be closed as there was other entrance available to the invites and other users of the mantaps and the temple. I find that more or less no substantial question of law has really arisen for consideration by this Court on the facts stated by me above. I find that more or less no substantial question of law has really arisen for consideration by this Court on the facts stated by me above. Most of them relate to appreciation of evidence and drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence on record. Therefore, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the C. P. C. must be extremely cautious to interfere with the finding of facts of the lower appellate Court unless there are compelling reasons to do so such as total misdirection to the evidence on record or perverse conclusions not warranted by the evidence on record. When that is not the case, this Court should sustain the findings recorded and the reliefs which flow from them in favour of the party in whose favour the finding was recorded. I do not see any merit in this appeal and it is rejected as substantial justice has been done to the plaintiff. Appeal rejected. --- *** --- .