JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 28.04.2001, passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 70 of 1998. 2. Key facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for the sake of convenience) has filed a suit for recovery of damages of Rs. 1,70,000/- against the respondent-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants for the sake of convenience). According to the plaintiffs, the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 170/241, Khasra No. 11, measuring 2-5-10 bighas, situate in Mauja Dhaban is recorded in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and one Shri Balram. Shri Balram has died and he is succeeded by the proforma defendants. According to the plaintiff, as per the family arrangement between the plaintiff and Balram, the land was divided into two parts and the suit land fell to the share of the plaintiff. He started construction of fishery tank in the year 1986 over this land. The same was completed in the year 1988. He has spent about Rs. 50,000/- for its construction. He has kept 3000 fishes in the said tank. According to the plaintiff, there is an out let at Baggi to drain out the over flow water of Pandoh and Sundernagar channels. This water was released in Lohardi Khad, which used to pass through village Dhaban nearby fishery tank of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff in the month of July, 1990, when the employees of B.B.M.B were ejecting the silt from the said channel through out let at village Baggi, they acted negligently and water level came up and Luhardi Khad was flooded. The tank of the plaintiff alongwith fishes was washed away, resulting in loss of Rs.1,70,000/-. The damage report was prepared by the Patwari which was sent to defendant No. 2 for making payment, but no payment was made. 3. The suit was contested by defendants No. 1 and 2. It was pleaded that there was no over flow of water in Luhardi Khad and the silt was ejected only in winter and dry season with utmost precaution and only limited water is allowed through main hydel cannel. The record of the removal of the silt was maintained and in the month of July, 1990, only limited quantity of silt was ejected. The record of the removal of the silt was maintained and in the month of July, 1990, only limited quantity of silt was ejected. 4. Learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi, H.P. framed the issues and dismissed the suit on 11.06.1998. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P. The same was dismissed on 28.04.2001. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. 5. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 03.01.2003: 1. Whether the finding recorded by both the courts below against the appellant dismissing the suit for damages are based upon mis-appreciation and mis-reading of the oral and documentary evidence? 2. Whether the certificate Ext. PW-2/A issued by the department of Fisheries of the State Govt. in favour of the appellant which was duly proved on record by the official of the department whereunder it was found that the tank which was damaged by respondent No. 2 herein is per se admissible as per the provisions of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act and the finding contrary recorded by both the courts below are perverse and illegal, if so its effect? 6. Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that both the Courts below have mis-read and mis-appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. According to him, the plaintiff has proved his case on the basis of Ex.-PW2/A, issued by the Department of Fisheries in favour of the plaintiff. 7. Mr. Aman Sood, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has supported the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 9. Since both the substantial questions of law are interconnected and interlinked, the same are taken up together for determination to avoid the repetition of discussion of evidence. 10. According to PW-1, the total money incurred for constructing water tank was Rs. 50,000/-. Rs. 10,000/- were spent towards the labour done by the family members. According to him, the width of the tank was 100 feet x 100 feet. He has placed on record the copy of jamabandi Ex.-PA of the suit land. Copy of notice is Ex.-PB and postal receipt is Ex.-PD. In his statement PW-1 has not disclosed that the water tank was got constructed through PW-6 Anant Ram. According to him, the width of the tank was 100 feet x 100 feet. He has placed on record the copy of jamabandi Ex.-PA of the suit land. Copy of notice is Ex.-PB and postal receipt is Ex.-PD. In his statement PW-1 has not disclosed that the water tank was got constructed through PW-6 Anant Ram. He has not brought any record of payments made to PW-6. He has not even narrated that the water tank was constructed by PW-6. It is only in cross-examination that he has deposed that contract was given to PW- 6 for the construction of water tank. According to the plaintiff, he started construction of water tank in 1986. It was completed in 1988. In cross-examination, he deposed that he completed the water tank and put 3000/- fishes in the year 1987. In case the water tank has been constructed in 1988, there was no possibility of putting the fishes in the tank in 1987. 11. PW-6, Anant Ram has deposed that he has started construction of the water tank in 1985. He completed the same in 1987. According to him, the fishes were put in 1986. There is variance in the statement made by PW-6 vis-à-vis the averments made in the plaint. PW-6 has never issued any receipt to the plaintiff. 12. PW-2, Raj Kumar has proved Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C. According to him, the subsidy is paid after physical verification and final installment is paid after completion of the tank. According to him, the water tank was completed on 05.02.1986 when the 3rd installment was paid. He was not aware, who has prepared Ex. PW2/B or Ex. PW2/C. He has not brought with him the original record. Plaintiff has also not placed on record any tangible evidence from whom he has purchased the fishes. 13. PW-5 Gulam Kadar has not deposed the extent of loss suffered by the plaintiff. He has admitted that the disputed tank was at a distance of 5 kms. from the place where the silt was being removed. He has deposed that the tank was at a distance of 50-60 meters from the Khad. Even the plaintiff was not sure on which date the water was released. 14. PW-3 Bhup Singh, Patwari has examined the damaged tank. He has proved the tatima Ex. from the place where the silt was being removed. He has deposed that the tank was at a distance of 50-60 meters from the Khad. Even the plaintiff was not sure on which date the water was released. 14. PW-3 Bhup Singh, Patwari has examined the damaged tank. He has proved the tatima Ex. PW-3/A. The date of Ex.-PW3/A is 16.01.1992, though according to the plaintiff, the water raised in the tank in the month of July, 1990. 15. PW-6, Anant Ram has deposed that the fishes were put in the tank in 1986, though the plaintiff says that it was in the year, 1987. PW-2 Sh. Raj Kumar, Fishery Officer, Mandi has deposed that they were not having Mahsher fish. According to the site plan Ex. DW2/A, the tank was away from the Khad. According to DW-1, as per the record maintained, in July 1990, 200 cuesecs of silt was discharged, but it has not caused any flood. 16. DW-2, Sanjay Kumar has also deposed that no flood was caused due to the discharge of silt. According to him, the water tank was at a distance of 300 feet from the river. He also deposed that no flood was caused due to the discharge of silt. DW-3, Executive Engineer has deposed that the silt is discharged in a controlled manner. The total quantity released was between 100 to 200 cuesecs and it does not result in any flooding. DW-4 Jagmohan, S.D.O. has proved the site plan Ex. DW2/A. According to PW1 and PW-2, the tank was constructed in the year 1987. However, as per Ex. PW2/A, the subsidy was received by the plaintiff on 08.07.1985, 18.11.1985 and 05.02.1986. The Courts below have correctly appreciated Ex. PW2/A. 17. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in this Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.