JUDGMENT : EASWARAN S., J. This appeal arises out of the concurrent findings of the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta, in O.S No.340/2006, affirmed by the District Court, Pathanamthitta, in A.S No.111/2009. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:- O.S No.340/2006, the suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for mandatory injunction, directing defendants 1 and 2 to restore the original paddy field within a stipulated period, or to let the plaintiffs be permitted to do so and allow the plaintiffs to realise the cost. Further reliefs are also sought for against the defendants to remove the unloaded earth from the plaint item Nos. 2 and 3. A consequential direction to the 3 rd defendant- District Collector, Pathanamthitta, to take appropriate proceedings against defendants 1 and 2 for violation of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order , 1967, was also sought for. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint item No.1 is 21½ cents of paddy land in Survey No.191/11/1, Re-Survey No.12/3 of Omalloor Village, which forms the western portion of a larger area of 43 cents. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to one late A.C.Thomas, the husband of the 1 st plainti father of plaintiffs 2 to 4. The plaint item No.2 is 21 ½ cents of paddy land adjacent to the eastern side of the plaint item No.1. Item No.3 is 15 cents of paddy land lying adjacently on the south-eastern side of the plaint item No.2. According to the plaintiffs, all three items of paddy field are portion of a larger extent known as ‘Pyvallibhagam Ela’ in Malayalam parlance. The middle of said Ela there exist a ‘valiya thodu’ having 6 feet width and 5 feet depth in the east-west direction, which is separated by a kayyala, from the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs were enjoying the natural right to drain out water from plaint item No.1, through plaint item Nos.2 and 3 and other adjacent paddy fields on the east for the last so many years. While so, the 1 st defendant reclaimed the plaint schedule property item No.2 into a garden land by filling it with earth at a height of 6 feet from the paddy field level and the 2nd defendant reclaimed plaint schedule item No.3 into a garden land by filing it with earth up to 6 feet. While so, the 1 st defendant reclaimed the plaint schedule property item No.2 into a garden land by filling it with earth at a height of 6 feet from the paddy field level and the 2nd defendant reclaimed plaint schedule item No.3 into a garden land by filing it with earth up to 6 feet. The aforesaid act is in total violation of the provision of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order , 1967, and therefore a complaint was lodged before the District Collector, who failed to take further action and hence notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was issued on 03.03.2006, and thereafter, the above suit was instituted by the plaintiffs/appellants herein. The defendants entered appearance and resisted the suit by contending that there is no cause of action against them. It was further asserted that they have not reclaimed the land and that the land in question was reclaimed much prior to their purchase. The 1 st defendant further denied the allegations that he had violated any of the provisions of the Land Utilisation Order. As regards item No.2, it was contended that the 1 st defendant purchased the property only on 02.02.2006 and that the plaint item No.3 was reclaimed about 30 years back and several coconut trees are standing in the aforesaid property having an age of nearly 20-25 years. On behalf of the plaintiffs Exts.A1 to A5 were produced and PW1 and PW2 were examined. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 to DW3 were examined. The Advocate Commissioner submitted Ext.C1 report, Ext.C1(a) mahazar and Ext.C1(b) rough sketch. The trial court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to move the case pleaded in the plaint and therefore dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred A.S No.111/2009 before the District Court, Pathanamthitta. The District Court, Pathanamthitta, on a re-appreciation of the evidence found that the plaintiffs could not prove that defendants 1 and 2 have reclaimed the property and therefore dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, confirming the judgment of the trial court, this Second Appeal is preferred. 3. Heard Shri.Parthasarathy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri.B.Premnath, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Shri.K.Denny Devassy, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 3 rd respondent. 4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, confirming the judgment of the trial court, this Second Appeal is preferred. 3. Heard Shri.Parthasarathy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri.B.Premnath, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Shri.K.Denny Devassy, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 3 rd respondent. 4. On 05.08.2013, while admitting the appeal, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:- i. Are the respondents entitled to fill up the land and raise the level so as to prevent natural flow of water from west to east? ii. Did the courts below go wrong in appreciating the said contention raised by the appeliants? iii. Are not the courts below wrong in denying the decree sought for on the ground of alleged acquiescence in the light of the pleadings and evidence tendered by the appellants? 5. Shri.Parthasarathy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants asserted before this Court that going by the report of the Advocate Commissioner, i.e Ext.C1, it is evident that the natural flow of water is blocked due to the reclamation of the land and thereby infringing the right of the plaintiffs under Section 7 of the Easements Act . It is further pointed out that even if the plaintiffs could not adduce evidence in support of their plea that the property has been reclaimed by defendants 1 and 2, inasmuch as the evidence was available before the court that the paddy field has been reclaimed, the alternate relief sought in the suit that is for a direction to the 3 rd defendant-District Collector to enquire into the allegations raised by the plaintiffs in their complaint regarding the alleged violation of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order , ought to have been granted and that the 3 rd defendant-District Collector, who was under obligation to enquire into such complaint, ought to have been directed to conduct an enquiry in order to find out as to whether the reclamation was in accordance with the provisions of Kerala Land Utilisation Order . It is further contended that the findings rendered by the courts below that the plaintiffs have acquiesced to the reclamation of the paddy land cannot be a ground to deny the right of easement under Section 7 of the Easements Act . It is further contended that the findings rendered by the courts below that the plaintiffs have acquiesced to the reclamation of the paddy land cannot be a ground to deny the right of easement under Section 7 of the Easements Act . Equally so, it is the finding that merely because the plaintiffs have stoped paddy cultivation, that by itself will not denude him the right to claim the right of easement under Section 7 of the Easements Act . 6. Per contra, Shri.Premnath, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would contend that the plaintiffs have in fact no cause of action against the defendants. Pointing out to the averments in paragraph 8 of the plaint and also to the statement under the head cause of action, it is contended that the plaintiffs themselves were not sure as regard the date of exact reclamation of the land. It is further pointed out that as far as item No.3 of the plaint schedule is concerned, even according to the plaintiffs the property was reclaimed way back in the year 2003 and that even going by the report of the Advocate Commissioner, there were coconut trees and other cultivations, which were 20-25 years old, thereby clearly indicating that the reclamation was not in terms of the dates pleaded in the plaint. As regards item No.2, it is contended that the 1 st defendant purchased the property only in the year 2006, and that the property was reclaimed prior to the purchase itself. As against this denial, the plaintiffs failed to adduce sufficient evidence and thus, there is no burden on the 1 st defendant to prove that the reclamation was not done by him. 7. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar, perused the judgments rendered by the courts below and also the records in the present case. 8. Only evidence available in this case to prove as to whether item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule property were reclaimed or not, is the report of the Advocate Commissioner. Item No.2 is owned by the 1 st defendant, whereas item No.3 by the 2 nd defendant. No doubt, the perusal of the report of the Advocate Commissioner shows that the property was reclaimed and there is obstruction to the natural flow of water. Item No.2 is owned by the 1 st defendant, whereas item No.3 by the 2 nd defendant. No doubt, the perusal of the report of the Advocate Commissioner shows that the property was reclaimed and there is obstruction to the natural flow of water. But at any rate, even though the Advocate Commissioner has reported that the natural flow of water is obstructed, he has further reported that, there is no absolute obstruction of the natural flow of water. 9. Be that as it may, the crucial question to be considered by this Court is as to whether the plaintiffs have discharged their burden of proving that defendants 1 and 2, who have reclaimed the property in question. A cursory reading of the report of the Advocate Commissioner shows that as regards item No.3, he has found that the property is being cultivated with coconuts trees and planting trees. According to the Advocate Commissioner, there were coconut trees having an age of more than 20 years, 28 rubber trees aged 10 years and coconut saplings aged 8 years. This indicates that the property in question was reclaimed much prior to the date mentioned by the plaintiffs in the cause of action portion of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, item No.3 was reclaimed on 20.12.2003 and tested against the report of the Advocate Commissioner, it is clear that the averments in the plaint are incorrect. The defendants on the other hand were successful in adducing independent evidence to show that item No.3 of the plaint schedule was reclaimed much prior to the date, which the plaintiffs have alleged in the plaint. 10. Still further, as regards item No.2, this Court finds that there is a clear denial of the claim of the plaintiffs that item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was reclaimed on 26.02.2006. Therefore, the primary burden were on the plaintiffs to show that it was the 1st defendant who had reclaimed the property. It is thereafter only, will the burden shift on the shoulders of the 1 st defendant to disprove the said fact. When the plaintiffs seeks relief in the form of mandatory injunction to restore the plaint item Nos.2 and 3, the court necessarily will have to see as to whether the conditions specified under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act are complied with or not. 11. When the plaintiffs seeks relief in the form of mandatory injunction to restore the plaint item Nos.2 and 3, the court necessarily will have to see as to whether the conditions specified under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act are complied with or not. 11. Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act reads as under:- 39.Mandatory injunctions .?When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the Court is capable of enforcing, the Court may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of the requisite acts. 12. A bare reading of aforesaid provisions shows that the basic requirement of issuance of mandatory injunction is to prevent a breach of an obligation, which is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts. Unfortunately, the plaintiffs have not established before the courts below that there was an obligation on the part of defendants 1 and 2 to maintain the paddy land as such without reclaiming or causing damage to the nature and lie of the property. When the obligation on the part of the defendants is tested in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties and also in the light of the specific findings by the Advocate Commissioner, that there exists several coconut trees having an age of 20 years and rubber trees having 10 years of age in plaint item No.3, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the concurrent findings by the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court in refusing to issue a mandatory injunction against defendants 1 and 2 is perverse and requires interference in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. Resultantly, answering the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal against the appellants, this Court finds that in the absence of evidence adduced by the plaintiffs to prove that defendants 1 and 2 had in fact reclaimed the property in question, it has to be held that the findings rendered by the courts below does not call for any interfere by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.