JUDGMENT K.C. Gupta, J. - This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by defendants against the judgment and decree dated 4.5.1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Sangrur, whereby he dismissed their appeal and maintained the judgment and decree dated 3.6.1989 passed by Sub-Judge Ist Class, Sangrur, whereby the suit of the respondent (plaintiff) for the recovery of Rs. 50,000/- as damages was decreed with costs alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit i.e. 13.2.1984 till the realisation of the decretal amount. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Shisha Singh s/o Anokh Singh was the co-sharer of the land measuring 16 kanals comprised in Rectangle No. 111 and Killa Nos. 15(8-0) and 16(8-0) situated in village Rogla. Vide mortgage deed dated 18.6.1968, Shisha Singh mortgaged the aforesaid land with possession in favour of Ram Kala father of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Subsequently, Ram Kala died and the respondent alongwith his brother Bhura became the mortgagees as they were the sons of Ram Kala. On 20.6.1972, Shisha Singh is alleged to have created additional mortgage of this very land for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and thus, the respondent alongwith his brother Bhura became mortgagees in possession for a sum of Rs. 8,000/-. 3. It was next averred that Shisha Singh on 7.1.1974 executed an agreement to sell the land in favour of the respondent for an amount of Rs. 12,000/- and received Rs. 1,000/- as earnest money. He further promised to get the sale deed executed and registered on or before 25.6.1974. 4. It was further averred that Shisha Singh became dishonest. He alongwith Smt. Vir Kaur widow of Ujagar Singh and Piara Singh sold land measuring 42 Kanals 6 Marlas out of 88 Kanals 9 Marlas vide sale deed dated 4.6.1974 to Niranjan Singh, Chandi Ram, Darshan Singh, Shera @ Mewa Singh ss/o Harka Ram, and Daulat Ram son of Neetu Ram including Killa No. 111/15(8-0). He further sold, alongwith other two aforesaid co-sharers, land measuring 24 Kanals vide sale deed dated 6.6.1974 to appellants, Joginder Singh and Sukwant Singh for Rs. 21,000/- including Killa No. 111/16(8-0). 5. He further sold, alongwith other two aforesaid co-sharers, land measuring 24 Kanals vide sale deed dated 6.6.1974 to appellants, Joginder Singh and Sukwant Singh for Rs. 21,000/- including Killa No. 111/16(8-0). 5. It was further pleaded that at the time of sanctioning of the mutation of mortgage in favour of Ram Kala, Killa No. 111/15 instead of Killa No. 111/15 was entered and sanctioned due to an inadvertent mistake and as such, in the revenue record also instead of Killa No. 111/15, Killa No. 11/5 was entered. However, the respondent alongwith brother Bhura remained in possession as mortgagees of land measuring 16 Kanals comprised in Killa Nos. 111/15 and 111/16. 6. It was next pleaded that the appellants wanted to take forcible possession of the mortgaged land from the respondent and his brother. On 14.2.1981, at about 10/11 A.M., the appellant Daulat Ram armed with stick, Midha, Niranjan, Darshan, Shera, Shisha and Jaggar armed with one Gandasa each, Sucha armed with Kirpan, Chandi Ram armed with a Ghop and Ram Ji Lal armed with a spear (Barchha) came on the land on a tractor. At that time, respondent, Ram Das alongwith Labh Singh, Satnam Singh and Surti were cutting fodder for their cattle in their own land adjoining to the mortgaged land. All the appellants armed with weapons shouted Lalkara that they would forcibly plough the land which was under mortgage with them and take possession of the same. The respondent alongwith his companions Labh Sigh, Satnam Singh and Surti, told them not to take forcible possession as the litigation regarding this land was pending in the Court and they could take possession of the same in accordance with law but they did not agree. They got down from the tractor and started inflicting injuries to Ram Dass, respondent. Ram Ji, appellant, gave a spear (like a Gandasa) blow on the forehead of Ram Dass. Sucha Singh gave a stick blow on his right elbow joint. Ram Ji again gave a spear blow, like a Gandasa, on his forehead and another blow in a similar manner on his forehead towards the left eye brow; that Midha, appellant gave a Gandasa blow on his right arm, on which the respondent fell down. Sucha Singh gave a stick blow on his right elbow joint. Ram Ji again gave a spear blow, like a Gandasa, on his forehead and another blow in a similar manner on his forehead towards the left eye brow; that Midha, appellant gave a Gandasa blow on his right arm, on which the respondent fell down. Thereafter, Shera @ Mewa, appellant, gave a Gandasa blow on the right leg of the respondent above his ankle joint and due to this injury, his ankle joint was virtually chopped off and only a portion of flesh was left hanging while all the bones were cut; that Midha, appellant, gave Gandasa blow on the right knee of the respondent and thereafter Chandi, appellant, gave a stick blow on his left arm. Niranjan, appellant, gave Gandasa blow on the forehead of the respondent. Satnam came forward to rescue Ram Dass, on which Niranjan, Jaggar, Shera, Darshan, Midha and Shisha gave him Gandasa blows on the different parts of his body. Labh Singh tried to rescue Satnam, on which Chandi Ram gave a Ghop blow on the left side of his chest while Sucha gave a Kirpan blow and Jaggar gave a Gandasa blow on the right thigh as well as on his knee joint. Smt. Surti also tried to intervene and she was assaulted by Chandi Ram, Daulat Ram and Jaggar with their respective weapons. The respondent, Satnam, Labh Singh and Surti continued raising alarm. On hearing their alarm, Bhura and Dalip Ram were attracted to the spot and saw the occurrence. After inflicting injuries, the appellants ran away on the tractor. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place in Killa No. 111/16. 7. It was next averred that the injured were removed to Civil Hospital, Sangrur, by Puran Chand, Mangal Ram, Sarup Singh and Bhura, where they were got admitted and medically examined. The lower right leg portion (above ankle joint) of the respondent Ram Dass, had to be amputated and he remained admitted in the hospital for about 1-1/2 or 2 months at Sangrur and then was shifted to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, where he remained admitted for about 15 days. 8. It was further pleaded that Ram Dass was aged about 37/38 years and used to do cultivation and earned about Rs. 10,000/- per annum from cultivation and further used to keep buffaloes and sold milk and earned Rs. 8. It was further pleaded that Ram Dass was aged about 37/38 years and used to do cultivation and earned about Rs. 10,000/- per annum from cultivation and further used to keep buffaloes and sold milk and earned Rs. 1,000/- per month. However, due to the amputation of the lower part of his right leg and other injuries, he had become permanent crippled and was unable to do cultivation or to maintain the cattle for selling of milk and further he was unable to walk without the help of sticks. Therefore, he had been deprived of the income from cultivation as well as by sale of milk and had suffered a huge loss. The loss of income from agriculture was assessed at Rs. one lac @ Rs. 5,000/- per annum for a period of 20 years. Rs. 60,000/- were assessed as loss from the income of sale of milk. He also claimed Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering, both mental as well as physical, further Rs. 5,000/- as medical expenses and Rs. 10,000/- as damages for permanent deprivation of part of the body. Besides it, he also claimed general damages but in all he claimed a moderate sum of Rs. 50,000/- only. 9. The appellants (defendants) contested the suit and filed written statement. They denied that Shisha Singh mortgaged the land to Ram Kala or that after the death of Ram Kala, Shisha Singh had created additional mortgage in favour of the respondent and his brother by taking Rs. 3,000/- more. They also denied that Shisha Singh had executed any agreement of sale dated 7.1.1974 in favour of the respondent and his brother Bhura for selling the land measuring 16 Kanals for Rs. 12,000/- or that he had received Rs. 1,000/- as earnest money. They next stated Shisha Singh alongwith Vir Kaur and Piara Singh had executed sale deed dated 6.6.1974 in favour of Joginder Singh and Sukhwant Singh for the land measuring 24 Kanals which including Rect. No. 111 and Killa Nos. 5 and 16 which were under mortgage with Ram Kala, father of the respondent. They also stated that Shisha Singh alongwith Vir Kaur and Piara Singh, on 4.6.1974, had sold some land in favour of Chandi Ram, Darshan, Niranjan, Shera and Daulat Ram including Rect. No. 111 and Killa No. 15 and the possession was also delivered to them. 5 and 16 which were under mortgage with Ram Kala, father of the respondent. They also stated that Shisha Singh alongwith Vir Kaur and Piara Singh, on 4.6.1974, had sold some land in favour of Chandi Ram, Darshan, Niranjan, Shera and Daulat Ram including Rect. No. 111 and Killa No. 15 and the possession was also delivered to them. They further stated that Killa No. 15 of rectangle No. 111 was never in possession of Ram Kala. They also denied other allegations of Ram Dass and stated that he was not doing any work. 10. They next stated that Ram Dass, respondent, alongwith other persons, namely, Bhura, Labh Singh and Satnam Singh had come on the land to take its forcible possession and they were the aggressors as they had caused injuries to Ram Ji Dass, Jaggar, Sucha and Niranjan in Rect. No. 111 and Killa No. 15 and then they had acted only in self defence. 11. On these pleadings, the following issues were struck :- "1. Whether the defendant voluntarily and wrongfully caused injuries to the plaintiff ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation and damages from the defendants ? If so, to what amount ? OPP 3. Relief." 12. The parties adduced their evidence. After hearing counsel for the parties, Sub-Judge Ist Class, Sangrur, vide his judgment dated 3.6.1989 decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff by holding under Issue No. 1 that the appellants had caused injuries to the respondent and his companions in furtherance of their common object wrongfully with a view to dis-possess the respondent and his brother Bhura Singh from Killa Nos. 15 and 16 forcibly. Under Issue No. 2, it was held that the respondent was entitled to the amount claimed and all the appellants were liable jointly and severally to pay this amount to him as they were joint tort-feasors. 13. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, on 4.5.1999. 14. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the defendants have filed the present Regular Second Appeal. 15. Counsel for the appellants, Sh. H.S. Hooda, Sr. Advocate, alongwith Mr. Devinder Singh, Advocate, was heard and the record was gone through carefully. However, none appeared on behalf of the respondent, although earlier Sh. J.R. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate, had appeared. 16. 14. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the defendants have filed the present Regular Second Appeal. 15. Counsel for the appellants, Sh. H.S. Hooda, Sr. Advocate, alongwith Mr. Devinder Singh, Advocate, was heard and the record was gone through carefully. However, none appeared on behalf of the respondent, although earlier Sh. J.R. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate, had appeared. 16. It is an admitted fact that the respondent alongwith his brother Bhura had filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 7.1.1974 against Shisha Singh etc. and that suit was decreed by Senior Subordinate Judge, Sangrur, vide judgment dated 15.6.1978. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants had filed an appeal, which was accepted by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 13.11.1980 and it was held that the respondent alongwith his brother was not entitled to specific performance of the agreement to sell but were entitled to only return of the amount. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Additional District Judge, the respondent alongwith his brother had filed Regular Second Appeal No. 2781 of 1980, which was accepted by this Court vide order dated 5.4.2001 and the suit of the respondent and his brother for specific performance, of agreement of sale of land measuring 16 Kanals, was decreed. It was also held that the respondent and his brother were in possession of land comprised in Rect. No. 111 and Killa Nos. 15 and 16. 17. In the present case, both the Courts below have held that the occurrence of causing injuries had taken place in Rect. No. 111 and Killa No. 16 and the appellants were the aggressors and further they in furtherance of their common object, in order to take illegal possession of the mortgaged land; had inflicted injuries to Ram Dass, respondent and his companions and that the respondent was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- from the appellants. Both these are findings of fact which have become final. According to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Second appeal lies to the High Court only from the decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. Section 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure further states that no Second Appeal shall lie except on the grounds mentioned in Section 100. Section 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure further states that no Second Appeal shall lie except on the grounds mentioned in Section 100. Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure was subject matter of discussion before Honble the Supreme Court in case Kulwant Kaur and others v. Gurdial Singh Mann (dead) by LRs. and others etc., 2001(2) ICC 1, where the Honble Supreme Court had struck down Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act as being repugnant to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the present case, it has also not been pointed out that there is any perversity in the findings given by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court. 18. Counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants were also booked under various offences for allegedly causing injuries to respondent Ram Dass and his companions but they were acquitted in that case and that shows that the case against the appellants was false and they were not the aggressors and on the other hand, the respondent and other persons were the aggressors and they inflicted injuries to the appellants as they wanted to take forcible possession of the mortgaged land. In my opinion, the contention of learned counsel is not tenable. The copy of the judgment of the criminal court has not been placed on file. Otherwise also, the findings of the criminal court are not relevant in civil proceedings. The only fact relevant is that the appellants have been acquitted. In the criminal proceedings, the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable shadow of doubt but in the civil proceedings the case depends upon the preponderance of evidence. 19. In order to prove the allegations, Ram Dass, respondent, has examined himself as PW4. He stated that injuries were caused to him by all the appellants. His statement is further corroborated by PW5-Satnam Singh and PW6-Labh Singh. They have further stated that the appellants had the motive to cause injuries on the person of Ram Dass as they wanted to take forcible possession of the land from the respondent which was in his possession as mortgagee and this land comprised in Rect. No. 111 and Killa Nos. 15 and 16. The statement of Ram Dass is corroborated by the statement of PW1-Dr. No. 111 and Killa Nos. 15 and 16. The statement of Ram Dass is corroborated by the statement of PW1-Dr. Sushil Kumar Bansal, who medico legally examined Ram Dass on 14.9.1981 and found 11 injuries on his person. He also stated that injuries No. 6 and 7 were the result of blunt weapon while all other injuries were the result of sharp weapon. He proved Ex.P1. carbon copy of the M.L.R. He also examined Satnam Singh on the same day and found 11 injuries on his person out of which injuries No. 1 to 7 were caused by sharp edged weapon while injuries No. 8 to 11 were caused by blunt weapon. He next examined Labh Singh on the same day and found 4 injuries on his person as detailed in medico-legal report, Ex.P3. He further examined Smt. Surti on the same day and found 5 injuries on her person as detailed in copy of the M.L.R., Ex.P4. He further stated that he had x-rayed skull and left fore-arm and left hand of Ram Dass and on examination left forearm showed fracture of Ulna bone in the middle. PW4, Ram Dass further stated in his statement that his right leg was almost chopped off. PW8, Dr. R.N. Singla stated that right leg above the ankle of Ram Dass was amputated as the operation was performed on his person on 14.2.1981. He further stated that this injuries related to injury No. 11 as shown in the M.L.R. He further stated that it was a permanent disability and the said person could not have free movement. DW1-Dr. Uggar Sain had medico-legally examined Sucha Singh, Ram Ji Lal and Jag Ram on 14.2.1981. He found one incised wound on the person of Sucha Singh. He also found one punctured bone deep wound below left nipple on the person of Ram Ji Lal and further found one contusion over the dorsal aspect of left wrist of Jag Ram. Therefore, the injuries on the persons of appellants were of minor nature as compared to the injuries on the person of respondent and his companions. This also shows that the appellants were the aggressors. 20. Counsel for the appellants also contended that in the revenue record, Khasra No. 111/15 was shown to be in possession of appellants and this showed that the respondent and his brother were not in possession of the said Khasra number. This also shows that the appellants were the aggressors. 20. Counsel for the appellants also contended that in the revenue record, Khasra No. 111/15 was shown to be in possession of appellants and this showed that the respondent and his brother were not in possession of the said Khasra number. In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel is not tenable. While sanctioning the mortgage mutation, a mistake had occurred and Killa No. 5 instead of Killa No. 15 was entered. But it is clear from the mortgage deed that Shisha Singh had mortgaged Rect. No. 111 and Killa Nos. 15 and 16 to the father of the respondent and had also handed over the possession of the aforesaid Killas to the father of the respondent and after his death, the respondent and his brother came in possession as mortgages of the aforesaid land. The evidence led by the respondent is cogent and trustworthy and there is nothing to disbelieve the same. The place of occurrence had also been duly proved by DW4, Parhlad Singh, Sub Inspector, who had prepared the site plan in the criminal case State v. Chandi Ram etc. registered under Sections 326/149 I.P.C.in Police Station Dirba. The certified copy of the site plain is DW4/A. In the said site plan, the place of occurrence has been shown in Killa No. 16 at point A and not in Killa No. 15. This site plan belies the stand of the appellants that the occurrence took place in Killa No. 15 when Ram Dass, respondent, alongwith his companions want to Killa No. 15 to take its forcible possession. 21. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, I hold that there is no force in the appeal. The appellants were the aggressors and they had caused injuries to Ram Dass and his companions in furtherance to their common object and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the injuries caused to Ram Dass had been rightly allowed by the Courts below. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.