SA No. 21 of 2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. Tribhuwan Phartiyal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Advocate for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction praying that the defendant should be restrained from encroaching the gallery which is located between the house of the appellants and the defendant. The suit was contested by the defendant alleging that he and his fore fathers had been using the gallery for generations and had a right of passage. The trial court, after considering the material evidence on record, decreed the suit holding that the owner of the gallery is the plaintiff and that the defendant was unable to prove his right or title on the gallery in question. The defendant, being aggrieved, filed an appeal which met the same fate and, consequently, the present second appeal has been filed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and, upon a perusal of the impugned judgments, the Court finds that a categorical finding of fact has been arrived at by both the courts below to the effect that the plaintiff is the owner of the gallery in question. This finding is based on the appreciation of evidence that has come before the court below as well as on the basis of the report of the Survey Commission in which a categorical finding has been given that the gallery comes in the share of the plaintiff. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the finding is neither perverse nor is against the material evidence on record. Consequently, the Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 20.07.2011 Shiv