ORDER 1. The instant appeal by appellant/plaintiff under section 100 of CPC is directed against concurring judgment and decree dated 18.8.2005 passed by Second Additional District Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Guna (M.P.) in Civil Appeal No.35-A/2001 confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2004 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II Chachoda in Civil Suit No. 26-A/2002. Plaintiff’s suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that plaintiff filed a suit inter alia contended that a plot ad-measuring 30×20 sq. ft. is of his ownership and possession. Plaintiff has constructed a house over it. On its north side there is a two storeyed house and at the back a house of three storeyed. On the western side, house of defendant is situated which is adjacent to plaintiff’s house. Defendant has constructed his house recently and raised construction up to the level of three storeyed. Earlier the plot was vacant plot over which the defendant has raised illegal construction. Initially two-storeyed were constructed and thereafter third storey was constructed. A pipeline is fitted on the wall at second floor of defendant’s house which travels around the plaintiff’s house and due to leakage in pipeline it causes inconvenience to the plaintiff. It is submitted that defendant had no right to allow flow of wather through pipeline around that wall of the plaintiff’s house. With the aforesaid pleadings, plaintiff filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. Defendant filed written statement denying all plaint allegations. It is contended that in fact house was constructed way back in the year 1989 and the drainage system was installed at that time only with the permission of the competent authority. Suit is filed on imaginative facts only to harass the defendant. 4. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence and upon critical evaluation of the evidence on record, dismissed the suit. 5. On appeal, plaintiff filed an application under Order XLI rule 27 CPC to bring on record certain photographs and the negative to submit that pipeline was installed later on and due to leakage in the pipeline, same is causing nuisance. 6. 5. On appeal, plaintiff filed an application under Order XLI rule 27 CPC to bring on record certain photographs and the negative to submit that pipeline was installed later on and due to leakage in the pipeline, same is causing nuisance. 6. The first appellate Court upon consideration of the photographs had reached the conclusion that for want of clinching evidence as regards date and time of photographs, same cannot be said to be the latest photographs. Similarly, the photographs have no bearing over the issue involved in the suit. That apart, the first appellate Court had also critically scrutinize the Commissioner’s report prepared on spot inspection detailing the complete facts as regards the allegations and denial thereof. The report is well discussed in para 14 of the impugned judgment. It is informed that there is no seepage of water. In fact the water discharges goes to the septic tank constructed on the ground floor, which is property covered. Hence, the allegations of the plaintiff was found to be devoid of substance. Thus, considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, first appellate Court confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 7. Having perused the judgment of Court below this Court is of the view that both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record. The entire gamut of the matter is in the realm of facts. No question of law much less substantial question of law is arises in this appeal for consideration. Appeal being bereft of merits, is hereby dismissed.