JUDGMENT : This appeal lays challenge to the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.17/2006 dated 18.12.2015, wherein the Senior Civil Judge, Jewargi dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC, Jewargi in O.S.No.3/2001 dated 14.11.2005. 2. The appellant was the plaintiff and respondents were the defendants before the Trial Court. The parties will be referred as plaintiff and defendants as per their respective ranks before the Trial Court for convenience in this judgment. 3. The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking relief of perpetual and mandatory injunction against the defendants in respect of land Sy.No.381/B measuring 06 acres 09 guntas situated at Aralagundagi village Tq: Jewargi Dist: Gulbarga. It is the contention of plaintiff that he is the owner and in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.381/B measuring 06 acres 09 guntas situated at Aralagundagi village Tq: Jewargi. The defendants are the owners of the lands bearing Sy.No.385/A-4, 385/A-5, 385/A-2, 385/A-3, 385/A-6 of village Aralagundagi Tq: Jewargi. It is further contended that there is a road which is in existence since time immemorial and passes through lands Sy.Nos.382, 383 and 384 in order to reach the lands of the defendants as shown in the hand sketch map produced by the plaintiff along with the plaint. It is contended that there is also a road formed by the Krishna Bhagya Jalanigam Authorities in order to reach lands of the defendants. The plaintiff has shown the road in the hand sketch map in yellow colour, the road formed by Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd., in green colour. It is further case of the plaintiff that the defendants tried to form a road in the suit property. The defendants instead of using the road shown in green and yellow colour to approach their lands, they are bent upon to create a new way shown in red colour in the hand skettch map. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit. 4. The defendants have filed the written statement. Defendants admitted the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land. Further the defendants also admitted their ownership of land Sy.No.385. However, the defendants denied existence of alleged road shown in yellow and green colour in the sketch map. They contended that there is no road passing through lands bearing Sy.Nos.382, 383 and 384 as shown in yellow colour in plaintiff's hand sketch map. Further the defendants also admitted their ownership of land Sy.No.385. However, the defendants denied existence of alleged road shown in yellow and green colour in the sketch map. They contended that there is no road passing through lands bearing Sy.Nos.382, 383 and 384 as shown in yellow colour in plaintiff's hand sketch map. They have also denied that the owners of lands bearing Sy.No.374 to 381 are using canal road to approach their lands. The defendants contended that there is a road in lands bearing Sy.Nos.381 and 380 on the northern boundary to approach their lands for cultivation. The said way is also known as customary way. The plaintiff in order to block the road, which is in existence on the northern side of his land, has filed a false suit. They have denied that they are trying to create a new road in the suit property. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. On the basis of above pleadings the Trial Court framed the issues. Thereafter-wards the plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and got examined two more witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked four documents as Exs.P.1 to 4. The defendant No.1 got examined himself as DW.1 and one witness was examined on behalf of defendants as DW.2 and got marked three documents as Exs.D.1 to 3. The Court Commissioner was examined as CW.1 and Exs.C.1 to 19 are marked in the evidence of Commissioner. 6. After hearing the arguments the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiff preferred the regular first appeal which also came to be dismissed, confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, this regular second appeal on the following grounds:- (a) that the judgment and decree passed by the both the Courts are contrary to law and facts. (b) that both the Courts have failed to appreciate the fact that there is a road which is in existence and which passes through the lands bearing Sy.Nos.382 and 384 in order to reach the land of defendants. (c) that there is a road laid by Krishna Bhagya Jalanigam Ltd,. Authorities, to reach land of the defendants. (d) that there is no way on the northern boundary of the plaintiff's land. (c) that there is a road laid by Krishna Bhagya Jalanigam Ltd,. Authorities, to reach land of the defendants. (d) that there is no way on the northern boundary of the plaintiff's land. (e) that the way as alleged by the defendant is not forthcoming either in the ROR or in the village map. (f) that both Courts have failed to consider the documents produced by the plaintiff. (g) Both the Courts have solely relied upon the report of the Court Commissioner which is quite contrary to survey records. (h) Both the Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. (i) Both the Courts have come to a wrong conclusion which has resulted in serious injustice. With these main grounds the appellant prays to admit the appeal and to frame the substantial questions of law as pleaded in Para No.14 at Page No.9 of the appeal memo and allow the appeal. 7. Heard Smt. Hema L.K., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Shivanand Patil, learned counsel for the respondents. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that; plaintiff is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.381/B measuring 06 acres 09 gunta situated at Aralagundagi village Tq: Jewargi. The defendants illegally tried to form a road in the suit property. It is further argued that in Ex.P.2 and 3 the ROR and tonch map no road is shown. The Trial Court has not framed the issues properly. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court mainly relied upon the Commissioner report which is not correct. The issue No.4 is not correctly framed and the burden is also not properly casted. The learned counsel further argued that when the defendants and other villagers were passing through the lands bearing Sy.No.382, 383 and 384 as shown in Ex.P.4, the report of the commissioner which is contrary to it cannot be believed. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have wrongly appreciated the evidence. The defendants can go to their lands through a bridge constructed by Irrigation Department along the water canal. The learned counsel further argued that the defendants have not filed any suit claiming any easementory right of way. The Court Commissioner has not carried the work as directed by the Court. With these main arguments the learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal and set-aside the judgments of both the Courts. 9. The learned counsel further argued that the defendants have not filed any suit claiming any easementory right of way. The Court Commissioner has not carried the work as directed by the Court. With these main arguments the learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal and set-aside the judgments of both the Courts. 9. Against this, the learned counsel for respondents argued that the defendants are the owners of lands bearing Sy.No.385/A-2, 385/A-3, 385/A-4, 385/A-5 and 385/A-6 of Aralagundagi Village Tq: Jewargi.It is further argued that the plaintiff has wrongly shown the road in red colour in the sketch map. There is no road running in lands bearing Sy.No.382, 383 and 384 of Aralagundagi village as shown in yellow colour of Ex.P.1 map. The plaintiff in order to block the road, which is in existence on the northern side of his land, has filed the above suit. Both the Courts rightly considered the oral and documentary evidence and Court Commissioner report. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. I have carefully perused the judgment of the both the Courts, evidence led by both the parties, the appeal memo and records of the case. 11. The undisputed contention in this case are that a) the plaintiff is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.381/B of Aralagundagi village Tq: Jewargi. b) the defendants are the owners of lands bearing Sy.No.385/A-2, 385/A-3, 385/A-4, 385/A-5 and 385/A-6 of Aralagundagi Village Tq: Jewargi. 12. In order to prove his case the plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1. In his evidence he has reiterated the contention taken by him in the plaint. The plaintiff has produced documents Exs.P.1 to 4. The said documents are plaint sketch map, ROR and tonch maps of lands bearing Sy.Nos.381, 380 to 385. The plaintiff has shown three ways in his hand sketch map -Ex.P.1. According to him the way shown in yellow colour in the hand sketch map passes through the lands bearing Sy.Nos.382, 383 and 384. Further another way shown in blue colour passes along with water canal on the northern side of lands bearing Sy.Nos.373 to 379. According to plaintiff, these two ways are convenient to the defendants to reach their lands. 13. In the cross-examination he has admitted that the canal road was made just 04 or 05 years prior to he giving evidence. Further another way shown in blue colour passes along with water canal on the northern side of lands bearing Sy.Nos.373 to 379. According to plaintiff, these two ways are convenient to the defendants to reach their lands. 13. In the cross-examination he has admitted that the canal road was made just 04 or 05 years prior to he giving evidence. He has also admitted that Ex.P.1 Hand Sketch Map is prepared as per his instruction. He has also clearly admitted that two roads shown by him in blue colour and yellow colour are not at all touching defendants' land. He has also admitted that there is no mention of any way in Ex.P.4 -tonch map that the road passes through lands bearing Sy.Nos.382, 383 and 384 as shown by him in his hand sketch map. He has also admitted that defendants are passing through his land for the last one year. So, he has filed this suit. He has also stated that except defendant No.1 the other defendants have not at all caused any interference and they have never asked any way in his land. He has also stated that only after the water canal is formed, the land owners of Sy.No.379 are passing through the said water canal bridge. He has denied the suggestion that the defendants are using Wahiwat road from the northern boundary of his land. 14. The plaintiff has examined one witness by name Malakappa as PW.2. The said PW.2 -Malakappa in his evidence stated that he is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.375 of Aralagundagi village. He has also admitted in the cross-examination that he never uses either survey road or the canal road. So, his evidence is of no use to the plaintiff. His land is situated on the southern side of the water canal. He has also admitted in the cross-examination that he do not know how many roads are there to go to lands bearing Sy.No.386, 387 and 388. He has also admitted that the canal road was made just to 04 to 05 years back. So, his evidence will not help the plaintiff in any way. 15. PW.3 -Sahebagouda is another witness for the plaintiff. In his evidence he has stated that he is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.43. It is evident that he is not the neighbouring land holder of either plaintiff's land or defendants' land. So, his evidence will not help the plaintiff in any way. 15. PW.3 -Sahebagouda is another witness for the plaintiff. In his evidence he has stated that he is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.43. It is evident that he is not the neighbouring land holder of either plaintiff's land or defendants' land. He has clearly admitted in the cross-examination that he do not have any land near to lands bearing Sy.No.381 or 385. He cannot say in which survey number the canal road passes. He has also clearly admitted that in between the land of the defendant No.1 and the canal road there is a land of another person. So, it is evident that there is no way for the defendants to go to their lands through canal road bridge, as land of another person is situated in between them. So, his evidence falsify the case of the plaintiff. 16. Against this defendant No.1 got examined himself as DW.1. The defendants have produced the RORs of lands which are marked a Exs.D.1 to 3. In his evidence DW.1 has stated that they are using the way situated in the suit property in order to reach their lands since time immemorial. He has further stated that his father and ancestors of defendants were also using the said way to reach their lands. DW.1 has further stated that, except the way situated in the suit property there is no other way to the defendants to reach their lands. He denied the existence of the road as shown in yellow colour of Ex.P.1 -Map. He has further stated that said canal road is for away from his land and there is no bridge over land bearing Sy.No.380 as shown in the plaint sketch map. The land of PW.3 is situated at a distance of 10 kms. away from the suit land. Some suggestions were made to him in the cross-examination by plaintiff's side, he has denied them. Even though DW.1 is cross-examined at length, nothing is elicited from his cross-examination which is useful to the plaintiff. 17. DW.2 -Shivalingappa is another witness of defendants. He did not offer himself for cross-examination. Hence, his evidence has been discarded. 18. The Court Commissioner has been examined as CW.1. He has produced documents as per Exs.C.1 to 19. Even though DW.1 is cross-examined at length, nothing is elicited from his cross-examination which is useful to the plaintiff. 17. DW.2 -Shivalingappa is another witness of defendants. He did not offer himself for cross-examination. Hence, his evidence has been discarded. 18. The Court Commissioner has been examined as CW.1. He has produced documents as per Exs.C.1 to 19. In his evidence he has stated that he visited the spot by giving prior notices to both the parties. The commissioner has clearly stated that there is a water canal bridge in between lands bearing Sy.No.381-C-1 and 382. From the said bridge on the northern side of lands bearing Sy.No.381-C-1, 381-C-2, 381-B, 381-A there is a cart-road and it goes up to land bearing Sy.No.383 and from southern end of said survey number the cart-road passed and reaches and ends at land bearing Sy.No.385. He has clearly stated that there is no way from Aralagundagi to Nagavi village which passes through lands bearing Sy.No.382, 383 and 384. He has also stated that there is no way in land bearing Sy.No.380. The plaintiff counsel has not denied the evidence of the commissioner on oath nor the documents and photos produced by the commissioner. Even in the cross-examination by the plaintiff's side the commissioner has stated that the way stated by him which passes through lands bearing Sy.No.381-C-1 and Sy.No.381-C-2 is a cart-road. The said way is used by the villagers. The commissioner report clearly corroborates the case of the defendants and proves plaintiff case is not true. 19. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants are trying to create a new way in the suit property as shown in red colour of his hand sketch map -Ex.P.1. The defendants have denied the alleged road shown in the red colour. They contended that towards the northern side of the suit property there is a cart-road, which is used by the defendants since time immemorial to reach their lands. 20. Both the Courts have gone through the commissioner report, wherein it is clearly stated that there is a cart-road in land bearing Sy.No.381 towards the northern side. The report of the commissioner is not denied by the defendants. 21. 20. Both the Courts have gone through the commissioner report, wherein it is clearly stated that there is a cart-road in land bearing Sy.No.381 towards the northern side. The report of the commissioner is not denied by the defendants. 21. The plaintiff has not chosen to examine the adjacent land owners, who are competent persons to say whether the defendants are trying to form a new road or not or they are passing through any other way to go to their lands. This aspect goes against the plaintiff. 22. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have discussed the evidence of plaintiff and defendants and come to conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendants are trying to create a new road in the suit land. The plaintiff also admits that the other defendants No.2 to 5 never tried to make any road or interfere with his possession. Therefore, there is no cause of action to file suit against defendants No.2 to 5 also. 23. It is pertinent to note that the First Appellate Court has discussed at Para Nos.47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 of its judgment as to how the hand sketch map produced in this case as per Ex.P.1 is not true and correct. It appears that the plaintiff after dismissal of the suit filed an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the sketch map. The said application appears to be rejected. The First Appellate Court has considered the proposed sketch map produced by the plaintiff along with the photos produced by the commissioner which clearly tallies with the written statement contention of the defendants and the evidence placed before the Court. Therefore, the prayer and cause of action shown by the plaintiff in this suit are not true and correct. The plaintiff himself contended that the red colour road shown in Ex.P.1 map is not correct. Therefore, the prayer made by the plaintiff is not tenable. Therefore, the prayer and cause of action shown by the plaintiff in this suit are not true and correct. The plaintiff himself contended that the red colour road shown in Ex.P.1 map is not correct. Therefore, the prayer made by the plaintiff is not tenable. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have concurrently held that the defendants have no other way except the cart-road as stated by the commissioner on the northern side of plaintiff's land which starts from water canal bridge and passes through lands bearing Sy.No.381-C-1, 381-C-2 and 381-B, 381-A and turns again towards north and passes through southern end side of land bearing Sy.No.383 to reach the land of defendants. The said findings of both the Courts are based on the evidence on record and also the factual aspects evident from the commissioner report. 24. It is settled principles of law that, when there is a concurrent findings by both the Courts on fact, which is based on appreciation of evidence placed on record then this Court being a second appellate Court will not interfere with the judgment of First Appellate Court, unless it is shown that the judgment of the First Appellate Court is perverse or illegal and not based on the settled principles regarding appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, there is no scope to admit the appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as no question of law much less any substantial question of law arise in this appeal so as to admit it. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following.... ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jewargi, in R.A.No.17/2006 dated 18.12.2015, is hereby confirmed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Send back the secured records to the concerned Courts.