JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bagalkot (for short ‘the lower appellate Court’) in RA No. 33/2012, whereby the judgment and decree passed in OS No. 18/2011, on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot (for short ‘the Trial Court’) is confirmed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the trial court. 3. The plaintiff preferred OS No. 18/2011 for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants contending that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the land bearing Sy. No. 80/2 totally measuring 7 acres. The defendants without having any rights over the suit schedule property made new water spout in the middle of bunds of land bearing Sy. No. 79/1B and 80/1 and made to flow rain water and thereby causing soil erosion in the suit property belonging to the plaintiff, causing great loss and hardship to the plaintiff. On service of summons, the defendants appeared and refuted the claim of the plaintiff. On appreciation of the material evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred RA No. 33/2012, which came to be dismissed concurring the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff. 4. Sri. S.D. Rathod, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant submitted that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the material evidence adduced by the plaintiff, where it was clearly established that the defendants have made water spout in the middle of bunds and made to flow rain water through the land of the plaintiff, which is causing greater hardship affecting the land of the plaintiff by causing soil erosion. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the judgment and decree of the Courts below is perverse and the same calls for interference by this Court, since the substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. 6. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the judgment and decree of the Courts below is perverse and the same calls for interference by this Court, since the substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. 6. It is manifestly clear from the findings recorded by the Courts below that Exs.D1 to D3 produced by the defendants/respondents establishes that there is no any trench shown towards northern side and rain water, which regularly flows in the lands of the respondents and flows further in the lands of the plaintiff towards northern side trench. This documentary evidence prevails over the oral evidence of the plaintiff that there is a trench towards northern side of the land for flow of rain water. No positive material is elicited in the cross-examination of DW-1 to DW-3, who are examined on behalf of the defendants. 7. Nextly, it is significant to note that the plaintiff had preferred OS No. 228/2009 against the defendants for the very same relief and the said suit was withdrawn. The conduct of the plaintiff in filing a different suit in OS No. 18/2011 on the very same cause of action against the very same defendants cannot be appreciated, since there was no liberty granted in OS No. 228/2009 to file fresh suit at the time of withdrawal of OS No. 228/2009. Both the Courts below have analytically examined the material evidence on record to arrive at a finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish his entitlement for the relief claimed. The concurrent findings of the Courts below do not call for any interference by this Court. No perversity or arbitrariness is found in the orders impugned. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. 8. Appeal stands dismissed.