If the case t is about removing damage and not about claiming ownership, then the court is not entitled to investigate ownership.
The court establish from the observation done in first instance the existence of wastewater outlet with polluted water going through west of
the defendant’s house and extending from the plaintiff’s house who has the ability to dispose of it from another side towards the public road, and
confirmed the first instance decision ruling to remove damage by closing the outlet, and thus its decision is well grounded and legally based. However
the court when not taking notice that the damage is old does not affect the case because it is about wastewater and it is among changeable damages
that do not remain in still state, whereas the appellant not having another outlet was proven false when the court established the possibility
of disposing wastewater towards the public road, and from another side, filing a request for right of servitude is not the subject of this case,
while the principle of damage cannot be removed by bigger damage was answered in the decision by the possibility of opening the outlet towards
the public road.