JUDGMENT K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. Plaintiff, who lost his suit for recovery of money from the respondent has approached this court with this second appeal. According to him in terms of Ext.A1 compromise decree in O.S.17/53 the predecessor in interest of defendant was liable to construct a bund across a water channel for irrigation purpose. To incur expenses in that regard he was given additional share in terms of the said decree. The defendant did not construct the bund during the last few years. This resulted in suits by the plaintiff to recover the amount that he had incurred for constructing the bund. Those suits were decreed during the previous years as revealed by Ext. A1. According to the plaintiff during the years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 also the defendant did not construct the bund. According to him he constructed it. He had incurred an expenditure of Rs.3600. He claimed that amount in this suit. 2. The suit was defended by the defendant contending that the defendant constructed the bund in terms of the compromise decree. He produced certain receipts with reference to the expenditure incurred in that regard. He also named a contractor who was entrusted to make such construction. He contended that the plaintiff did not construct the bund and was therefore not entitled to the amount claimed. 3. The trial court did not accept the contention of the defendant that he had constructed the bund. The trial court also did not accept the evidence in that regard tendered by the defendant. But the trial court did not decree the suit because according to the trial court there was no evidence to show that the plaintiff had constructed it to claim the expense incurred for such construction. The lower appellate court also accepted that view. It is in the above circumstances, that this second appeal has been filed. 4. It is contended by the appellant/plaintiff that the construction of the bund during the said years was an admitted fact. The only point for decision was who constructed it. Having found that the defendant had not constructed it, the other probable conclusion was that the plaintiff had constructed it. Therefore the plaintiff was entitled to the amount claimed in the suit and suit ought to have been decreed. There was no other conclusion possible. The only point for decision was who constructed it. Having found that the defendant had not constructed it, the other probable conclusion was that the plaintiff had constructed it. Therefore the plaintiff was entitled to the amount claimed in the suit and suit ought to have been decreed. There was no other conclusion possible. Therefore the findings of the courts below are perverse findings liable to be interfered under S.100 of the CPC. That itself is a question of law arising in this second appeal to be answered in favour of the appellant to reverse the decree, the counsel contend. According to me I am unable to agree with this contention especially in the light of the recent ruling of the Supreme Court, wherein parameters and ambit of S.100 had been highlighted. In the decision in Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savithribai Sopan Gujar and Ors. ( 1999 (3) SCC 722 ), the Supreme Court held that "the second appeal cannot be decided on merely equitable grounds. The concurrent findings of facts, how so far erroneous, cannot be disturbed by the High Court in exercise of powers under this section. The substantial question of law has to be distinguished from the substantial question of fact". In this case both the courts came to the conclusion that there was no evidence on record to show that the plaintiff had constructed the bund. It may be true that there was a bund. In the suit what the plaintiff claimed was recovery of money. In such circumstances it was incumbent upon him to adduce evidence with reference to the construction and the expenditure incurred. It is in the absence of those details the suit was dismissed. Who had constructed the bund was really only a question of fact which cannot be interfered with in a second appeal. 5. According to the appellant/plaintiff when it had been found by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court that the defendant did not construct the bund, necessarily the possible conclusion shall always be to the effect that the plaintiff constructed the bund. The plaintiff thus seek an equitable relief. It was also held by the Supreme Court in the very same case that: "In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate court is binding on the High Court in second appeal. The plaintiff thus seek an equitable relief. It was also held by the Supreme Court in the very same case that: "In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate court is binding on the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first appellate court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence." As already mentioned above both the courts below have, while dismissing the suit and confirming the decree had taken into account the given set of circumstances such as the non-availability of evidence on the part of the plaintiff to show that he had constructed the bund and he had incurred expenses as claimed. The record shows that there is no piece of evidence available either as voucher or as receipt showing expenditure incurred by the plaintiff to claim reimbursement of such expenditure. Therefore another conclusion is impermissible as by the Supreme Court in a second appeal like this. The finding that the plaintiff has not constructed the bund is really a finding of fact and that is a concurrent fact found by both the courts below. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Vidhyadhar v. Jakrao ( 1999 (3) SCC 573 ) that: "The findings of fact concurrently recorded by the trial court as also by the lower appellate court could not have been legally upset by the High Court in a second appeal under S.100 CPC unless it was shown that the findings were perverse, being based on no evidence or that on the evidence on record, no reasonable person could have been come to that conclusion." It is contended by the appellant that when it was found by both the courts below the defendant had not constructed the bund, the probable conclusion is that the plaintiff had constructed it and while rejecting that case, both the courts below have arrived at a perverse finding inviting interference under Sec.100. In such circumstances it was incumbent on the plaintiff to produce the proof of expenditure incurred by him. The trial court did not decree the suit because the plaintiff was unable to prove before it that he had constructed the bund, by adducing necessary evidence in the form of voucher and receipts. Naturally that finding was confirmed by the lower appellate court. Such a finding cannot be termed as a perverse finding. More over there is no evidence to the effect that the plaintiff had constructed the bund. Mere finding that the defendant has not constructed the bund will not lead to a conclusion that the plaintiff had constructed it Thus on the basis of the precedents this is not a fit case for interference under S.100 of CPC. Appeal fails and is dismissed.