IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 185 of 2011 Date of decision : 8.7.2011 Hari Chand ….. Appellant. Vs. Kishori Lal …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. H.C. Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, J (Oral). This appeal has been directed against judgment, decree dated 8.2.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No.85 of 2010 affirming judgment, decree dated 25.9.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.II, Una , Solan in Civil Suit No. 23/05. 2. The facts in brief are that appellant had filed a suit for mandatory injunction against respondent to close the water outlets/spouts marked by letters Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 shown in red colour in the site plan. 3. The suit was contested by respondent and he has denied the claim of the appellant. He took the stand that he is having Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… abadi on the spot since 1984. The appellant has examined four PWs including himself. PW-2 has admitted in his statement that he is not in talking terms with respondent for the last two years. He has dispute with respondent over abadi. He has further stated that respondent has encroached upon his land. The lower appellate Court has taken into consideration these admissions and did not believe PW-2 on the point that water from the roof of the house of respondent is damaging the property of the appellant. No fault can be found for the reasoning given by the lower appellate Court in disbelieving PW-2. PW-3 Amar Singh has admitted that he has not visited the spot. PW-4 has only prepared the plan. The appellant has made self serving statement in support of his case. There is no corroboration to the statement made by the appellant by an independent witness. The appellant has not examined any expert to establish that the water coming from the house of respondent is damaging his property. The two Courts below have rightly appreciated the material on record. The findings of the two Courts below are based upon facts, no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. July 8, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ) (sks) Judge.