1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT. SHRI RAM V. ASHA DEVI & OTHERS S. B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL.265/2004 against the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2004, passed by Mr.Akshay Chandra Kiradu, Additional District Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar Camp Suratgarh in Civil Appeal Decree No.7/99 arising out of judgment and decree dated 02.02.1999, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Suratgarh, Distt. Sri Ganganagar in Civil Original Suit No.12/98 (Shri Ram v. Ms.Asha Devi & Others). DATE OF JUDGMENT : JANUARY 16, 2007. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA Mr.S.K.Gupta, for appellant. Mr.Kailsh Khatri, for respondents. BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-defendants was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 2nd February, 1999, against which, 2 the plaintiff preferred appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 12th July, 2004. Both the courts below concurrently held that the way infront of the plaintiff's house is straight and because of the construction raised by the defendants, said way has not been obstructed. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the courts below deicded issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and held that infront of the plaintiff's house, there is a way. Despite this finding, the Courts below committed error of law in holding that still the defnedants have not committed any wrong by raising construction on the land in dispute. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the facts of the case and reasons given by the two courts below. Both the courts below concurrently held that the way infront of the plaintiff's house is straight way and the construction raised by the defendants is not obstructig the plaintiff's way in any manner. It appears that by the finding of the courts below on issue No.1, the plaintiff presumed that the courts below held that the land on which the defendant raised construction is also on way land, whereas it is factually wrong. In view of the above and in view of the reasons given by the two courts below in detail, I do not find any question of law is 3 involved in this appeal. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. scd