IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4214 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: July 8, 2011. Malook Singh and another. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Lal Singh and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Ramesh Goyal, Advocate for the appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 11.02.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide which appeal filed by the appellants against judgment and decree dated 24.08.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Rajpura, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully. The dispute is regarding wall in between houses of both the parties. The present appellants-plaintiffs have taken the plea that the wall RSA No.4214 of 2010 exclusively belongs to them whereas respondents-defendants have taken the plea that the said wall is a common wall and that they are having right to place wooden batons and to construct chimney etc. on the said wall. Both the courts below by appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that wall in dispute is common of the parties. Hence, suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in the second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) July 8, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 2