A.P. Sahi, J.— This is a defendant's Second Appeal. 2. The Trial Court did not accept the plaintiff's case in its entirety and refused to grant the relief as prayed for even though the Suit was partly decreed restraining the defendant from interfering with the use and occupation of the disputed area of the land to the extent as indicated in the map submitted by the. Advocate Commissioner, which forms part of the decree namely Paper No. 18-Ka-2. 3. The plaintiff was aggrieved by that part of the judgment whereby the main relief of permanent injunction in respect of the disputed land, as prayed for, had been refused as a result whereof the plaintiff filed an appeal which was allowed by decreeing the Suit in respect of 180 links of the land lying towards the North of the plaintiff's house after recording a finding on the existence of the boundary of the said area which was claimed by the plaintiff under a sale-deed. 4. The defendant had not filed any appeal against the partial decree as granted by the 'Trial Court. The defendant, however, became aggrieved with the judgment of the Court below after the entire Suit was decreed hence this Second Appeal. 5. From the record, it is clear that the Court had only issued notices on 30.9.1992 on the appeal without formally admitting the appeal and without framing any substantial question of law. 6. The matter remained pending and the plaintiff-respondent put in appearance through Sri S.C. Verma, learned counsel. It appears that some of the parties died in between as a result whereof substitutions were filed but no hearing took place. After the substitution applications were allowed, the parties sought adjournment's through their learned Counsel and the case was ultimately listed under Order XLI Rule 11 vide order dated 8.11.2012 whereupon Sri S.A. Ansari, learned Counsel for the appellant, advanced his submissions on 22.11.2012 and the appeal was finally heard on 27.11.2012 when the learned Counsel concluded their arguments. 7. Sri S.A. Ansari for the assistance of the Court referred to 4 questions as attempted to be framed by him which as per his argument were substantial questions that required consideration by this Court for admitting the appeal and setting aside the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. 7. Sri S.A. Ansari for the assistance of the Court referred to 4 questions as attempted to be framed by him which as per his argument were substantial questions that required consideration by this Court for admitting the appeal and setting aside the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. After hearing Sri Ansari, the Court found that the question of law sought to be raised, as a substantial question by the learned Counsel for the appellant is, as to whether the Courts below have committed an error by decreeing the Suit on the strength of the boundaries indicated in the plaint Map and Advocate Commissioner's report without taking into consideration the survey Map dated 10.8.1989 and without recording a finding to fix the boundaries in order to calculate the area of 180 links as claimed by the plaintiff. In short, the question raised is as to whether the Suit could have been decreed without exactly identifying the land for which there was contradictory evidence and the Courts below have misconstrued and misread the evidence, as such, the judgments are vitiated. 8. In my considered opinion having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent, the aforesaid questions clearly relate to findings of fact which is based on the evidence available on record and, therefore, do not give rise to any substantial question of law to entertain the Second Appeal under section 100 CPC. The appeal is, therefore, being dismissed summarily under Order XLI Rule 11 for the reasons given herein after. 9. I have perused the certified copy of the plaint that has been produced by Sri S.C. Verma, the certified copy of written statement as well as the two Map in relation to the plaint Map which has been made the basis of the judgment and decree of the Courts below. Sri S.A. Ansari advancing his submissions contends that there is no dispute with regard to the title of the plaintiffs over 180 links of the land that are claimed by them under the sale-deed. He, however, contends that the direction in which the said land extends and the boundaries thereof, are seriously disputed. Sri S.A. Ansari advancing his submissions contends that there is no dispute with regard to the title of the plaintiffs over 180 links of the land that are claimed by them under the sale-deed. He, however, contends that the direction in which the said land extends and the boundaries thereof, are seriously disputed. The drainage which flows across the disputed land has been flowing for the past more than 50 years, the course whereof is now sought to be changed by the plaintiff by re-claiming the land. He contends that as a matter of fact the area over which the defendant-appellants have their drainage flowing and also have their tenement is not over 180 links of the land that belongs to the plaintiff. The relief for injunction, the change of the course of the drainage and the removal of the tenements is absolutely misconceived. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have both committed an error by granting the decree without identifying the exact boundaries of the said 180 links of the disputed land of the plaintiff. 10. It is in this context that Sri Ansari contends that the finding of the Lower Appellate Court in relation to the Southern boundary is not based on any cogent evidence and the finding being perverse gives rise to a substantial question of law as urged by him. 11. He further submits that the reliance on the spot Map that was prepared on 15.2.1988 being Paper No. 18-Ka-2 could not be taken as evidence as the same was seriously disputed and not proved for the purpose of fixing the boundaries hence the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have both committed a manifest error by accepting the same for fixing the boundaries. He, therefore, contends that the second survey Map dated 10.8.1989 which is Paper No. 47-Ka-2 submitted by the Advocate Commissioner reflects the status of the agricultural holding (Chaks) of the defendant-appellants on the Northern side, that should be taken to be the boundary fixed in order to determine the 180 links towards it's South. He, therefore, contends that the second survey Map dated 10.8.1989 which is Paper No. 47-Ka-2 submitted by the Advocate Commissioner reflects the status of the agricultural holding (Chaks) of the defendant-appellants on the Northern side, that should be taken to be the boundary fixed in order to determine the 180 links towards it's South. In view of these 2 competing sets of Maps, the Court below should have issued directions for preparation and fixing of boundaries before decreeing the Suit and having not done so, the Courts below have committed a manifest error. He contends that the sale-deed of the plaintiff does not reflect the correct boundaries of the 180 links and, therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence and the area having been demarcated, the Suit could not have been decreed only on oral evidence. 12. As a corollary to this submission, Sri Ansari has further invited the attention of the Court to the discussion in relation to the consolidation Map that was prepared after including all the subdivisions of the earlier plots and it's consolidation in one plot No. 313. He contends that the consolidation proceedings had renumbered the entire plot of which 180 links are just one part, and there being no demarcation during consolidation proceedings, there was no material to locate the 180 links, as such, the plaintiffs had failed to prove their case and their Suit ought to have been dismissed. 13. Replying to the said submissions of Sri Ansari, Sri S.C. Verma contends that the focus of the argument being only on the absence of any cogent evidence for fixing the boundaries of 180 links, the same has to be gathered from the findings recorded and, therefore, Sri Verma contends that the Lower Appellate Court has not only considered the respective Maps that were on record, but has also gone to the extent of appreciating the oral evidence which includes the statement of DW3 - the defence witness, who, according to the Court below, has virtually accepted the boundaries as indicated in the plaint Map. He, therefore, submits that apart from the material on record, the existence of the disputed land and its boundaries was fully proved by the plaintiff and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Lower Appellate Court in fixing the Southern boundary of the disputed land is unimpeachable. This being a pure question of fact with no element of perversity in it, there is no substantial question of law that deserves to be framed and answered by this Court. He has invited the attention of the Court not only to the Maps that have been referred to in the judgments of the Courts below but also to the clear finding in this respect recorded by the Lower Appellate Court at internal page 6 (bottom) and internal page 7 of the certified copy of the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court. 14. I have carefully perused the judgments as also the plaint Map and the Map which has been made part of the decree of the Trial Court dated 15.2,1988. I have also contrasted it with the Map of the survey Commissioner submitted subsequently as referred to by Sri Ansari, a copy whereof was also placed by Sri Verma before the Court. Having perused the same, the Trial Court recorded a finding that on the basis of the documentary evidence namely the two competing Maps it was unable to clearly identify the 180 links of land as claimed by the plaintiff from the Maps that had been produced and, therefore, was unable to fix the boundaries and, therefore, partly decreed the Suit granting the injunction by believing the location as contained in the Commissioner's Map 18-Ka-2. 15. The plaintiff went up in Appeal contending that this appears to be a contradiction in itself as the Trial Court failed to consider the averments contained in the plaint and the statement of the plaintiff-witness in support of the plaint Map which could not be successfully dislodged by the defence version. The Lower Appellate Court traversed the aforesaid fact and then recorded a finding after reciting the statement of DW-3 which clearly accepted the existence of the Southern boundary on the borders of the holding and tube-well of one Baderan. The Lower Appellate Court traversed the aforesaid fact and then recorded a finding after reciting the statement of DW-3 which clearly accepted the existence of the Southern boundary on the borders of the holding and tube-well of one Baderan. This Southern boundary is clearly indicated in the plaint Map and the existence of Baderan's holding has also been explained in paragraph No. 8 of the written statement of the defendant. The plaint also clearly describes the Southern boundary and it is after explaining the Eastern and Western boundary that the 180 links of land was claimed in front of the plaintiffs house on the Northern side. 16. I have perused the judgment and the statements and there does not appear to be any dispute of the Eastern or the Western boundaries nor any evidence appears to have been led by the defendant to dispute the said boundary. The same is the position with regard to the Southern boundary and, therefore, the Lower Appellate Court was justified in relying on the statement of the defendant witness-DW3 to conclude that the holding of Baderan on the Southern side, fixing the boundary for the purpose measuring the 180 links of land towards the Northern side of Baderan's holding including the constructions of the plaintiff was established. 17. In my opinion, the aforesaid conclusion is absolutely justified on facts and no perversity could be pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant in the said finding even if it is presumed that there was a difference in the two Maps. The description of 180 links has been inferred from the evidence on record coupled with the presumption raised by the Lower Appellate Court on the strength of the statement of the defence witness -DW3. There is no error in the presumption so drawn by the Lower Appellate Court which was on the basis of cogent material. Thus, all the boundaries having been fixed, the Lower Appellate Court in the operative part of the judgment has rightly granted the relief by modifying the judgment of the Trial Court and the same being based on pure questions of fact does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 18. Thus, all the boundaries having been fixed, the Lower Appellate Court in the operative part of the judgment has rightly granted the relief by modifying the judgment of the Trial Court and the same being based on pure questions of fact does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 18. Sri Ansari, learned Counsel for the appellant, also urged that if the judgment of the Court below is confirmed without fixing the boundaries and the extent of the land of 180 links, the decree would be inexecutable. In my opinion, the said job of executing the decree is of the executing Court which shall take care to measure the land as per the judgment and decree of the Court below and not otherwise. There is no basis for any such presumption of miscalculation as apprehended by the learned Counsel for the appellant and, therefore, I find no merit to entertain this appeal for admission under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal Dismissed. _____________