JUDGMENT : C.S. DIAS, J. 1. The appellants are the defendants in O.S. No. 205/2011 of the Court of the Munsiff, Vadakara (Trial Court) and the appellants in A.S. No. 13/2013 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vadakara (Lower Appellate Court). The respondent in the second appeal was the plaintiff before the Trial Court and respondent before the Lower Appellate Court. The parties are referred to as per their status in the original suit. 2. The plaintiff had sought a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants and their men (i) from blocking the pipe fixed on the northern and north-eastern compound wall of the plaint schedule property for the free flow of rain water to the lane on the northern side, (ii) from blocking or preventing the flow of rain water from the plaint schedule property through the lane, (iii) from causing any damage to the compound wall of the plaint schedule property and (iv) from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. 3. The concise facts in the plaint, which are relevant of the determination of the appeal, are: the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the plaint schedule property having an extent of 18 cents confined within specified boundaries, which he obtained pursuant to a compromise decree. The plaint schedule property is lying at a lower level than the tar road of the Vadakara Municipality. The plaint schedule property has a slope towards northern side from time immemorial. During the rainy season, the water that accumulates in the plaint schedule property gets discharged through the pipes fitted in the compound wall, to the narrow unused lane situated between the property of the plaintiff and the defendants, and lying on the northern and north-eastern corner of the plaint schedule property; and from there it flows through the culvert beneath the tar road and passing through the side of the Paravanthala Temple. Rain water from the adjacent properties also flow through the lane. There are retaining walls on the eastern and northern boundaries of the plaint schedule property. The property situated on the northern side of the plaint schedule property belongs to the first defendant. Two years prior to the institution of the suit, the first defendant constructed a house in his property. He brought soil to the property and widened the lane. There are retaining walls on the eastern and northern boundaries of the plaint schedule property. The property situated on the northern side of the plaint schedule property belongs to the first defendant. Two years prior to the institution of the suit, the first defendant constructed a house in his property. He brought soil to the property and widened the lane. Thereafter, he along with his brother - the second defendant - widened the lane for using it as an entry to his property. On 4.12.2011, the plaintiff saw the defendants blocking the mouth of the pipe in his compound wall. Although the plaintiff requested the defendants to remove the blockage, they threatened him and did not remove the same. The defendants have no manner of right to block the free flow of water from the plaint schedule property through the lane. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for in the plaint. 4. The defendants filed a written-statement along with a counterclaim. The defendants contended that there is no lane separating the plaint schedule property and the property of the first defendant. It was their case that, the plaintiff had illegally constructed walls around his property without any plan or permit. The plaintiff has no right to accumulate water and discharge it through the pipes to the lane. The plaintiff is also draining out waste water through the pipes. Therefore, the defendants prayed that the suit be dismissed and the counter claim be decreed by granting the defendants a decree of mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to remove the pipes fixed in the compound wall. 5. The plaintiff filed a written statement refuting the allegation in the counterclaim. He contended that he had not drained out waste water through the pipes. The plaintiff prayed that the counterclaim be dismissed. 6. The plaintiff examined himself and a witness as PW-1 and 2 and marked Exts.A1 to A3 (d) in evidence. The defendants did not let in any oral evidence, but marked Exts.B1 to B3 in evidence. Exts.C1 to C3 (a) commission reports, plan and photographs were marked as Court Exhibits through the CW 1 the Advocate Commissioner. 7. The Trial Court, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, decreed the suit, in part and dismissed the counterclaim. The defendants did not let in any oral evidence, but marked Exts.B1 to B3 in evidence. Exts.C1 to C3 (a) commission reports, plan and photographs were marked as Court Exhibits through the CW 1 the Advocate Commissioner. 7. The Trial Court, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, decreed the suit, in part and dismissed the counterclaim. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: “In the result, suit is partly decreed and counterclaim is dismissed as follows: 1. Plaintiff is entitled to permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants or their men from blocking the pipe fixed on the northern and eastern boundary wall of the plaint schedule property with a three inch diameter pipe for the flow of rain water from the plaint schedule property to the lane on its northern side. 2. The above right shall not be interpreted as a right to drain out rain water using with a pipe more than three inch diameter or by using more than one pipe. 3. Plaintiff has no right to drain out any water other than the rain water to the northern side of the plaint schedule property. 4. Defendants are restrained from blocking the flow of rain water from the plaint schedule property through the pipe or from interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case no order as to costs.” 8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants moved the Lower Appellate Court in appeal. 9. The Lower Appellate Court after appreciating the pleadings and materials on record, confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 10. It is assailing the concurrent findings of the courts below that the defendants are before this Court in the Second Appeal, raising the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the courts below were justified in finding that water could be drained from an artificial device on the compound wall of the plaintiff into the property of the defendants on a lower level when the defendants were bound to receive only water by gravitation more so when considerations of prescriptions did not arise in the suit. (ii) Whether the courts below were justified in granting a decree to the plaintiff and dismissing the counterclaim when the effect of the decision was to cause nuisance to the defendants by discharge of water into the property held by the first respondent. 11. Heard Sri. B. Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants and Sri. K.K. Anilraj, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff. 12. The plaintiff had asserted that he has a right to flow rain water through the unused lane on the northern side of the plaint schedule property. The defendants had counter asserted that there is no separate lane and the whole property belongs to them, therefore, the plaintiff has no right to discharge water through their property. 13. The crux of the controversy is whether the disputed lane is in the ownership and/or the possession of the defendants. 14. The Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court after appreciating the pleadings and overwhelming materials on record, particularly the oral testimonies of PWs. 1, 2 and CW-1 and Exts.C1 to C3 (a), have concurrently arrived at a conclusion that there is an unused lane on the northern portion of the plaint schedule property separating the properties between the plaintiff and the defendants, which is contrary to the defence of the defendants. 15. Even though the defendants produced Ext.B1 assignment deed dated 29.06.1946, to prove title over their property, the said document does not show that the existence of a lane. The defendants have not only failed to describe the counter claim schedule property, particularly the lane, but have also failed to get their property identified. They have also not produced any material to prove that the lane is in their possession. Even worse, is that the fact that they have not let in any oral evidence to substantiate their pleadings, which is fatal to the defendants. As long as the defendants have failed to establish their right and possession over the unused lane, through which the rain water flows, the defendants cannot aspire for a decree of mandatory injunction or have the right to obstruct the flow of rain water from the plaintiff’s property to the unused lane. 16. As long as the defendants have failed to establish their right and possession over the unused lane, through which the rain water flows, the defendants cannot aspire for a decree of mandatory injunction or have the right to obstruct the flow of rain water from the plaintiff’s property to the unused lane. 16. The courts below have also found that, due to the topography of the plaint schedule property, the rain water flows from the plaint schedule property, without entering the defendants’ property, to the lane and from there to the culvert. It was in such circumstances, that the Trial Court granted a restrictive injunction in favour of the plaintiff for the purpose of draining out rain water from his property to the lane through a three inch diameter pipe, which has been confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. I do not find any error or illegality in the findings of the courts below, especially because the appellants/defendants have failed to establish their right and possession over the lane; therefore, they have no right to obstruct the plaintiff from discharging rain water to the lane as permitted by the courts below. 17. Resultantly, I do not find any question of law involved in the second appeal, much less any substantial question of law. The appeal fails and is hence dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs.