CSA 910/07 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench, Jaipur J U D G M E N T In S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.910/2007 Bishambhar Dayal Vs. Jai Dayal and others Date Of Judgment :: 27th March, 2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal Mr. Manu Bhargava with Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore, for appellant. Mr. B.L. Agrawal with Mr. Amit Gupta, for respondents. ........ This is plaintiff's second appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 4/8/2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Behror, Alwar in Civil Regular Appeal No.28/2005 whereby he dismissed plaintiff's appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 30/3/2005 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Behror, Alwar by which the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for permanent injunction was dismissed. CSA 910/07 (2) 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants stating therein that there is a Haveli situated at Behror of his ownership and towards the western side of this Haveli there is 6 ft. wide land (gali) of his ownership and some water drains, windows and ventilators are also existing in his western side of wall but the defendants want to take possession of the said land (gali) and on 9/10/2001 they started digging the land in dispute. 3. The defendants filed the written statement and while denying the averments made in the plaint stated that there is defendants' agricultural land towards the western side of the plaintiff's house and there is no land of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint, that the plaintiff has forcibly opened the drain towards the western side of the plaintiff's house opening in the agricultural land of the defendants. 4. The trial court on the basis of the CSA 910/07 (3) pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and after recording the evidence and hearing the parties dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction. 5. The first appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial court was affirmed as mentioned here-in-above. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments of both the learned courts below. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court reached at the finding by wrong appreciation of the evidence. It was then submitted that the defendant admitted in his written statement that in the western side of the plaintiff's house some windows exist but the trial court wrongly concluded that it has not been proved that there is any window on the western side of his house. It was then submitted that there is a 6ft. land which is owned by the plaintiff in which the defendants have no right to interfere. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents CSA 910/07 (4) contended that some windows have been opened by the plaintiff only ten years back which does not affect the finding in regard to the ownership of the disputed land. It was then submitted that there is concurrent finding of fact of both the learned courts below which should not be interfered with, in the second appeal. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff claiming the ownership of land of 6ft. width towards the western side of the plaintiff's house. There is concurrent finding of this fact that the plaintiff utterly failed to prove his title in regard to that disputed land. So far windows in the western wall of the plaintiff's house are concerned, there is admission of the defendant in the written statement to the effect that the appellant has opened his windows ten years back, however, the plaintiff has not claimed any relief in regard to those windows in his suit. Therefore, the finding on this point does not affect the overall conclusion arrived at by the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court. I do not find any good reason to CSA 910/07 (5) interfere in the concurrent finding of fact of both the learned courts below on the point that plaintiff could not prove his ownership or title in regard to 6ft. width of the disputed land. There appears no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal. 10. Consequently, this second appeal along with stay application is hereby dismissed in limine. However, it is made clear that the observation in regard to the windows towards the western side of the plaintiff's house will not affect the rights of parties if any further litigation arises. (J.R. Goyal),J. V.S. Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A. D38