S. P. MEHROTRA, J. The case has been called out in the revised list. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are not present. 3. The present second appeal has been by the defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 2. 9. 1974 whereby the lower appellate court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1974 filed by the defendants-appellants, and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 30. 11. 1973 passed by the trial court whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was partly decreed. 4. It appears that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for injunction and damages against the defendants-appellants. 5. It was, inter aiia, stated by the plaintiff-respondent in the said suit that the plaintiff-respondent was sirdar-owner of plot Nos. 1464 and 1465 situated in the village Badanpur Berihar, Pargana Tirwa, Tehsil Kannauj; and that plot No. 1457 of the defendants-appellants was situate in the west of plot No. 1465 of the defendants-appellants; and that the plot of the defendants-appellants was somewhat higher in level than that of the plot of the plaintiff-respondent; and that the slope of the defendants-appellants plot was towards north, and rainy water of the defendants-appellants plot always flowed in the north. 6. It was inter alia, further stated in the said suit that in the year 1971, the plaintiff-respondent had cultivated the crops of paddy in plot No. 1465 and Maize crop in the plot No. 1464; and that on 22. 8. 1971, the defendants-appellants cut the eastern boundary of their plots at place "x", and they further cut the southern boundary of plot No. 1465 of the plaintiff-respondent at place "y" which flooded both the plot of the plaintiff-respondent and his paddy and maize crops were completely damaged because of water-logging of the plaintiff-respondents plots for so many days; and that the defendants-appellants had no right to flow water of their field towards plots of the plaintiff-respondent; and that the plaintiff-respondent had suffered loss of Rs. 1,000 on account of damage to his crops, but he had filed the suit claiming damages for Rs. 500 only. 7. It was, inter alia, further stated in the said suit that the defendants-appellants were not ready to close the cuttings in the eastern boundary of their plot which would result in further loss to the defendants-appellants; and that the defendants-appellants were also not prepared to pay the damages. 8. 500 only. 7. It was, inter alia, further stated in the said suit that the defendants-appellants were not ready to close the cuttings in the eastern boundary of their plot which would result in further loss to the defendants-appellants; and that the defendants-appellants were also not prepared to pay the damages. 8. The said suit was registered as Original Suit No. 271 of 1972. 9. The defendants-appellants contested the said suit by filing their written statement wherein it was, inter alia, stated that there was a "nali" in the south of the plot of the plaintiff-respondent and water of the defendants-appellants plot flowed through the plots of the plaintiff-respondent in the southern "nali in the rainy season; and that the defendants-appellants had got prescriptive right of easement to flow water through the plaintiff-respondents plot; and that the plaintiff-respondent had suffered no" loss due to accumulation of water. 10. The trial court framed the following six issues" in the said suit: 1. Whether defendants have acquired easementary right to flow rainy water of the plot No. 1457 towards east over plot Nos. 1464 and 1465 of plaintiff? 2. Whether defendants cut western southern mend of plaintiffs plot No. 1465 to flow rainy water of plot No. 1457 in August, 1971? 3. Whether the plaintiff had suffered any damages due to any actions of defendants, if so to what amount? 4. Whether defendant No. 7 is a necessary party? 5. Whether suit is bad for estoppel and acquiescence? 6. To what relief, if any, is plaintiff entitled? 11. On issue No. 4, the trial court held that the defendant No. 7 in the said suit, was a necessary party. 12. On issue No. 1, the trial court held that the defendants-appellants could not acquire any easementary right to flow the water of their field through the field of the plaintiff-respondent. 13. On issue No. 2, the trial court held that it was the act of the defendants-appellants who discharged the water of their field in plot Nos. 1464 and 1465 of the plaintiff-respondent. 14. On issue No. 3, the trial court held that the plaintiff-respondent had not definitely shown as to what extent damages were sustained by the plaintiff-respondent by loss of maize crop. 15. 1464 and 1465 of the plaintiff-respondent. 14. On issue No. 3, the trial court held that the plaintiff-respondent had not definitely shown as to what extent damages were sustained by the plaintiff-respondent by loss of maize crop. 15. As regards the paddy crops, it was held that by logging for three or four days, the paddy crop could not be damaged because paddy crop required too much water. 16. Issue No. 3 was, therefore, decided in the negative. 17. On issue No. 5, the trial court held that the suit was not barred by principle of estoppel and acquiescence. 18. In view of the findings recorded on various issues, the trial court by its judgment and order dated 30. 11. 1973 partly decreed the said suit of the plaintiff-respondent with proportionate costs. 19. The relevant portion of the order of the trial court is reproduced below: " Plaintiffs suit is partly decreed-with proportionate costs for permanent injunction against the defendants. Defendants shall not flow water in rainy season from their plot No. 1457 through the plaintiffs plot Nos. 1464 and 1465. They shall close the cut on their eastern mend". 20. Against the said judgment and decree dated 30. 11. 1973 passed by the trial court, the defendants-appellants filed an appeal, being Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1974. 21. By the judgment and order dated 2. 9. 1974, the said Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1974 was dismissed with costs by the lower appellate court, and the decree passed by the trial court was confirmed. 22. The lower appellate court, inter alia, held that it was a case of natural flow of water from the land of the defendants-appellants situated on a higher level to the land of the plaintiff-respondent situated on the lower level; and that the natural right to flow the water on the lower land was probably obstructed by the plaintiff-respondent long ago by constructing mend, and therefore, the defendants-appellants did not have any natural right to flow the water on the field of the plaintiff-respondent. 23. Against the said judgment and decree dated 2. 9. 1974 of the lower appellate court, the defendants-appellants filed the present second appeal before this Court. 24. The present second appeal was admitted on 19. 1. 1976. 25. 23. Against the said judgment and decree dated 2. 9. 1974 of the lower appellate court, the defendants-appellants filed the present second appeal before this Court. 24. The present second appeal was admitted on 19. 1. 1976. 25. The second appeal would, therefore, be governed by the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the same stood prior to amendment made by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from 1. 2. 1977. This is evident from the provisions of Section 97 (m) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. 26. It appears that by the order dated 21. 2. 1983, the following issues were remitted to the lower appellate court for recording findings thereon as the same were necessary for the right decision of the case: " 1. Whether the water accumulated during rainy season on the appellants land flows towards the north through any irrigation channel? 2. When the walls around the fields of the respondent were constructed? 3. Whether the respondent has acquired any prescriptive right or any other right to check the flow of rainy water from the appellants field through his fields on account of the walls existing around it?" 27. By the order dated 19. 2. 1999. this Court reiterated that the findings be recorded by the lower appellate court on the said issues. 28. Accordingly, by the order dated 2. 0. 1. 2007, the lower appellate court has recorded the findings on the aforesaid issues remitted to it by this Court. 29. As regards issue No. 1 remitted by this Court, the lower appellate court has held that the outlet for the rainy water accumulated during rainy season on the field of the defendants-appellants was towards North, and then through the nali situated towards North of the field, the rainy water flowed towards East. 30. As regards issue No. 2 remitted by this Court, the lower appellate court has held that the parties have not led evidence on the basis of which, conclusion may be arrived at regarding definite date of construction of mend. 31. 30. As regards issue No. 2 remitted by this Court, the lower appellate court has held that the parties have not led evidence on the basis of which, conclusion may be arrived at regarding definite date of construction of mend. 31. As regards issue No. 3 remitted by this Court, the lower appellate court has held that the slope of the plot of the defendants-appellants was towards north, and in natural course, the rainy water from the field of the defendants-appellants flowed towards north, and therefore, the defendants-appellants had no right to divert rainy water accumulated in their field from its natural flow towards north and flow the same towards the plot of the plaintiff-respondent in east; and that in case, the defendants-appellants wanted to divert the natural flow of rainy water on their field and flow the same towards the field of the plaintiff-respondent in East, then the plaintiff-respondent had full right to resist the natural flow of rainy water by making mend. 32. I have perused the relevant material on record and considered the findings recorded by the courts below. 33. The trial court in its judgment and order dated 30. 11. 1973 recorded findings of facts on various issues after considering the evidence on record. The said judgment and decree dated 30. 11. 1973 passed by the trial court was confirmed by the lower appellate court by its judgment and order dated 2. 9. 1974 after considering the material on record. 34. Findings of fact have also been recorded by the lower appellate court on the issues remitted by this Court. 35. In my opinion, no illegality or perversity has been committed by the Courts below in recording the findings of fact on various issues involved in the present case including those remitted by this Court. 36. The second appeal, in my view, is concluded by findings of fact, and is liable to be dismissed. 37. The second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs in the second appeal. .