In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.2502 of 2006 ..... Date of decision:8.5.2008 Zora Singh .....Appellant v. Raghbir Singh .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the appellant. ...... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) The dispute between the parties in the present case is with respect to the wall marked as letters AD in the site plan Ex.P.1. The plaintiff-appellant prayed for a grant of decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from damaging, removing and demolishing the wall. A further mandate was sought for directing the defendant-respondent to keep the wall in a habitable condition towards his side. The learned trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case held that the wall was common and accordingly a decree for permanent injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff- appellant restraining the defendant from damaging, removing or demolishing the wall AD. In appeal filed by the defendant, the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar held that the wall AD belongs exclusively to the defendant-appellant (respondent herein). Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has contended that the wall has wrongly been held to be exclusively owned by R.S.A. No.2502 of 2006 [2] the defendant-respondent as admittedly the plaintiff has made Allas and almirahs in the wall. A beam for taking support of the roof was also put. It is submitted that had the wall been exclusively owned by the defendant- appellant (respondent herein), then he would not have allowed the plaintiff to make these constructions. It is submitted that there is no material to show that the defendant-respondent is the owner of the wall as he purchased the house on 23.1.1996. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the record it may be noticed that the finding whether the wall is common or exclusively owned by the defendant-appellant (respondent herein) is a pure finding of fact which does not call for any interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. No question of law is involved in the appeal. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. May 8, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No