JUDGMENT ARAVIND KUMAR, J.—This second appeal is by defendant questioning the correctness and legality of the finding recorded by trial Court in O.S. 196/1984 dated 5.8.1997 as affirmed by first Additional District Judge. Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore in R.A. No. 510/2004 dated 30.8.2006. 2. This Court by order dated 3.7.2008 has admitted the above appeal for adjudicating the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Courts below were justified in recording a finding that the plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule property when the suit was filed only for damages?” 3. Heard learned advocates appearing for appellant Sri. Ganapathi S. Shastri and Sri. Sachin B.S. appearing on behalf of Sri. K.M. Nataraj for respondent. 4. Facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under: Parties are referred to as per their ranking in trial Court. Plaintiff instituted a suit to direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 9,986/- towards damages, future interest at 5½% from the date of suit till date of realisation, including costs. It was contended that plaintiff is the owner of property comprising of Sy. No. 204/4B, 5 and a portion of Sy. No. 200/4-A of Kedila Village and it is in possession and enjoyment of plaintiff which consists of arecanut garden and defendant is the owner of properties consisting of Sy. No. 204/4B, 5 and a portion of 200/4A of same village wherein arecanut garden is grown. It was contended that, originally it was enjoyed as one unit and plaintiff and defendants being brothers a karar was entered into on 19.1.1965 between plaintiffs father and defendant properties were divided. From the said date of karar, properties were being enjoyed separately. It was stated that lands of both plaintiff and defendant, stands in the name of Kalikamba Devaru, family deity as the entire lands are endowed to the deity by predecessor of the parties. It was contended by plaintiff that in order to irrigate the lands of plaintiff and defendant, a water tank situated in Sy. No. 203/2A of Kedila Village was being used by both the parties in equal moieties, i.e., plaintiff was drawing water for 3½ days in a week and defendant for remaining 3½ days. It was contended by plaintiff that in order to irrigate the lands of plaintiff and defendant, a water tank situated in Sy. No. 203/2A of Kedila Village was being used by both the parties in equal moieties, i.e., plaintiff was drawing water for 3½ days in a week and defendant for remaining 3½ days. This water was being let from the tank through a pipeline underground in the land of third parties which thereafter connects the land of defendant, at the first instance and from there water is diverted in the above manner on the respective days by means of opening leading to garden of plaintiff and defendant as well. 5. It was contended that plaintiff does not have any other source of water to his entire garden which is an acre in extent. It was contended that defendant with malicious intention to destroy the garden of plaintiff obstructed the flow of water during February 1978 by damaging water channels for which a suit in O.S. 73/78 on the file of Principal Munslff of Bantwal, D.K. was filed for injunction and same came to be decreed on 19.01.1983. On account of obstruction caused by defendant in the year 1978 arecanut crop for the year 1978-79 was destroyed and plaintiff could not harvest arecanut crop and plaintiff used to get two candies (522 kgs) of arecanut if the irrigation was normal. Plaintiff contended that he had reserved his right to sue for damages in O.S. 73/78. 6. It was contended that even after injunction suit came to be decreed, defendant once again obstructed flow of water in the year 1984 and again garden of plaintiff had to suffer for dearth of water and for the year 1984-85 plaintiff could not harvest arecanut crop and by estimating the damages for loss of 1044 kgs of arecanut, a suit came to be filed for damages. Defendant on service of notice appeared and filed written statement and denied the claim of plaintiff. Defendant also contended that both plaintiff and defendant enjoyed the properties equally as per karar dated 19.01.1965. It was specifically denied that plaintiff is the exclusive owner or in possession of Sy. No. 200/4A and other averments made in the suit came to be denied. Defendant also contended that both plaintiff and defendant enjoyed the properties equally as per karar dated 19.01.1965. It was specifically denied that plaintiff is the exclusive owner or in possession of Sy. No. 200/4A and other averments made in the suit came to be denied. On the basis of rival contentions raised, trial Court framed following issues for its consideration: (1) Whether the plaintiff is the owner or in possession of S. No. 200/4A of Kedila Village? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has suffered damage to his areca garden in 1978-79 due to the tortious act of the defendant as alleged in the plaint? (3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant obstructed the flow of water from mamool tank In S. No. 200/3A in 1984 and caused damage to the crop of plaintiff for the year of 1983-84? (4) Whether the plaintiff proves that he had suffered the total damage of 4 candies 1044 kgs of area? (5) Whether any portion of suit claim is barred by limitation? (6) What relief the parties entitled to and to what order as to costs? Adll. Issue: Whether defendant proves that since claim of damage in respect of year 1978 was not sought in O.S. No. 73/78, as such his claim is barred under Order 2 Rule 3 of C.P.C? 7. Plaintiff in order to establish his case got examined his son as PW-1 and one witness was examined as PW-2 and 11 documents were marked as Ex. P1 to 11. Defendant got himself examined as DW-1 and produced four documents and got it marked as Ex. D1 to 4. 8. On considering the pleadings of parties and evidence on record, trial Court dismissed the suit. 9. Defendant being aggrieved by the finding given on Issue No. 1 preferred an appeal before Lower Appellate Court in R.A. No. 510/2004. In so far as decree of dismissal of suit was concerned, plaintiff preferred R.A. 244/2004. Both these appeals were taken up together for consideration by District Judge, Mangalore, D.K and by common judgment and decree dated 30.8.2006 dismissed both the appeals. It is stated at the bar that in so far as judgment and decree; passed in R.A. No. 244/2004 is concerned, same has become final since it has not been challenged. Both these appeals were taken up together for consideration by District Judge, Mangalore, D.K and by common judgment and decree dated 30.8.2006 dismissed both the appeals. It is stated at the bar that in so far as judgment and decree; passed in R.A. No. 244/2004 is concerned, same has become final since it has not been challenged. Present appeal relates to finding given on Issue No. 1 in O.S. 196/1984 affirmed by lower Appellate Court by its Judgment and decree dated 30.8.2008. 10. It is the contention of Sri. Ganapathi Shastri, learned counsel appearing for appellant that in a suit for damages, Issue No. 1 with regard to ownership of Sy. No. 200/4A framed by trial Court was irrelevant and inconsequential and as such an application in I.A. No. 17 came to be filed before trial Court for deletion of said issue. However, trial Court, neither passed any orders on the said application nor adjudicated the same and on account of non consideration of this application, it has resulted in a finding being given by trial Court which was not the scope of the suit. It is also contended that there is no definite finding given as to whether the plaintiff is the owner or in possession and none of the parties have produced any evidence namely documentary or oral with regard to ownership of the land and it is also the plaintiffs case that there was a karar between the parties in 1965 and admittedly under the said karar of 1965, plaintiff and defendant were allotted lands in Sy. No. 200/4A and as such finding given by trial Court that, plaintiff is in possession of Sy. No. 200/4A exclusively is erroneous and could not have been given. He would elaborate his submission by contending that order passed by lower Appellate Court affirming the said finding has resulted in great prejudice and as such he submits that substantial question of law requires to be answered in favour of appellant/defendant. 11. Per contra learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff would defend the judgment and decree passed by trial Court as affirmed by lower Appellate Court by contending that it was the specific case of the plaintiff that land in Sy. No. 200/4A was in the ownership and possession of plaintiff. Since, defendant by filing written statement at paragraph 2 has specifically denied ownership of plaintiff over Sy. No. 200/4A was in the ownership and possession of plaintiff. Since, defendant by filing written statement at paragraph 2 has specifically denied ownership of plaintiff over Sy. No. 200/4A and as such a issue came to be framed and a finding came to be given by trial Court with regard to ownership in the affirmative and same cannot be found fault with as it is a question of fact. 12. Having heard the learned Advocates, I have perused the judgment and decree of Courts below and perused the pleadings and evidence on record. Facts as pleaded have already been, extracted hereinabove and as such reproducing the same would result in repetition of facts and same is not being done. The core issue which requires to be addressed by this Court relates to as to whether trial Court should have embarked upon an enquiry to ascertain the ownership of land of Sy. No. 200/4A or not. The suit in question was filed for damages namely to recover the alleged loss said to have been sustained by plaintiff for not being able to raise arecanut crops in his garden on account of alleged obstruction of water to the plaintiffs land. The manner in which the water channel flows has been described by plaintiff in the plaint. Defendant having appeared and having filed written statement denied that plaintiff is the owner of Sy. No. 200/4Aof Kedlla Village. A perusal of the plaint would reflect that at paragraphs (3)(1) it has been stated by plaintiff that he is the owner of lands pertaining to Sy. No. 200/2, 3, 6 and 200/4A and at paragraph 3(2) it is contended by plaintiff that defendant is the owner of properties consisting of Sy. No. 200/4B, 5 and a portion of Sy. No. 200/4A. Thus, plaintiff also admits that defendant is owner of a portion of property in Sy. No. 200/4A and he Is in possession also. It is neither the case of the plaintiff nor the case of defendant that the property in Sy. No. 200/4A exclusively belongs to either of them though such vague plea is raised. It is no doubt true that in the written statement filed by defendant he has denied the ownership of plaintiff over land bearing Sy. It is neither the case of the plaintiff nor the case of defendant that the property in Sy. No. 200/4A exclusively belongs to either of them though such vague plea is raised. It is no doubt true that in the written statement filed by defendant he has denied the ownership of plaintiff over land bearing Sy. No. 200/4A, the issue which was required to be framed in the suit in question was as to whether water channel flows in the lands as pleaded by plaintiff or as pleaded by defendant and as to who has obstructed the said water flow. The issue regarding ownership over the land in Sy. No. 200/4A was never contemplated between the parties. However, the plaintiff having asserted his ownership over Sy. No. 200/4A and defendant having denied the same and asserted that he is the owner of Sy No. 200/4A, the trial Court: proceeded to frame Issue No. I which reads as under: “Whether the plaintiff is the owner or in possession of S. No. 200/4A of Kedila Village?” 13. Parties having understood the pleadings and being ad idem on this issue proceeded to tender their evidence both oral and documentary. There is no dispute on this fact-Defendant having filed an application in I.A. No. 17 for deletion of said issue on 17.8.1995 did not pursue the same and allowed it to remain on the file of trial Court till disposal of the suit. Pendency of this application was never brought to the notice of trial Court from 1985 to 1987. This itself clearly go to show that defendant was not interested in prosecuting this application. Defendant being fully aware of the fact that he has filed an application namely I.A. No. 17 for recasting of issue viz., deletion of Issue No. 1, he ought to have pursued the said application to its logical end. Having not done so defendant seems to have woken up from his slumber, re-agitated this plea before the Lower Appellate Court. However, 1st appellate Court alter considering the contentions raised by the respective advocates formulated the following point for its adjudication: “Whether the Court below erred in answering Issue No. 1 as affirmative and proceeded to record a finding in the negative; 14. On perusal of evidence on record it would emerge that, defendant also admits the fact of agreement entered into between plaintiffs father and himself. On perusal of evidence on record it would emerge that, defendant also admits the fact of agreement entered into between plaintiffs father and himself. Defendant has also admitted the fact of drawing water from this channel by plaintiff also. When defendant has denied the fact of ownership and possession of plaintiff over Sy. No. 200/4A, the Court below has rightly framed the said issue. No doubt it is a suit for damages for alleged loss of crop and it is important to note at this juncture that when plaintiff sought the relief of damages in respect of the loss of crop which he would have raised in his property by contending such property to be in his ownership and when the defendant has denied the very ownership and possession, of plaintiff to the said property, the fact of ownership and the possession is corollary to consider the claim for damages and in order to examine whether plaintiff has suffered any loss in not raising crops in his property and said property belongs to him or not and this incidental question cannot be answered unless the ownership and possession is proved in respect of that particular property. In the absence of arriving at this conclusion trial Court cannot decree the suit for damages towards the loss of crop in respect of that particular property said to be in the ownership of plaintiff. 15. It was not the case of the plaintiff that, he had grown arecanut in Sy. No. 200/4A for loss of which damages was claimed. It was contended that he was growing arecanut not only in Sy. No. 200/4A, but also in other lands as above referred to namely 200/2, 3 and 8. The issue was whether water flowing in the channel running through these lands had been obstructed by defendant. Plaintiff and defendants also admit that there was an agreement entered into in the year 1965 and each of the parties were allotted a portion in Sy. No. 200/4A. The point of dispute between the parties in the suit was with regard to alleged loss sustained by the plaintiff on account of obstruction caused to the flow of water through the channel, to the plaintiffs land. It was only in this background, parties have tendered their evidence by raising respective plea. No. 200/4A. The point of dispute between the parties in the suit was with regard to alleged loss sustained by the plaintiff on account of obstruction caused to the flow of water through the channel, to the plaintiffs land. It was only in this background, parties have tendered their evidence by raising respective plea. Thus, adjudication and finding given by the trial Court; as affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court would necessarily has to be with reference to the water channel only flowing in any of these survey numbers and nothing beyond it. Hence, it cannot be construed to be an adjudication regarding title or ownership to Sy. No. 200/4A. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that dispute regarding property bearing Sy. No. 200/4A had been subject matter of W.P. No. 43583/2004 disposed of on 29.8.2005 against which an appeal was filed in WA/3884/2005 and same came to be disposed of on 2.6.2006 giving liberty to approach civil Court and now defendant will not be able to urge his right in civil Court in view of this finding by trial Court and civil Court would not be in a position to adjudicate anything with regard to the merits of the said claim as such he prays for setting aside said finding. If at all, the defendant has a remedy under law and same is recognised by this Court. It would be needless to state that the defendant would be entitled to proceed in accordance with law and any finding given herein above, would not entitle the defendant to revive a cause of action if it is already dead. Thus, observing to this effect, it is made clear that finding given by the trial Court on issue; No. l as affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court would relate to the water channel only and cannot be construed as an adjudication regarding title or ownership to Sy. No. 200/4A. Hence, the substantial questions of law is answered, by holding that finding of trial Court as affirmed by Lower Appellate Court was partially justified in giving finding in the affirmative and said finding would relate only to water channel running in the said properties (described as suit schedule property) and only to the said extent it would bind the parties and nothing beyond it. 17. 17. In view of the above discussion, the appeal stands disposed of with the judgment and decree of the trial Court as affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court being affirmed except to the extent observed herein above. 18. Accordingly the appeal stands disposed, of. In view of the same Misc. Civil No. 15797/2011 does not require to be adjudicated. Same stands rejected.