JUDGMENT 1. - This is the defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for mandatory perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from using 6'2"x4'8" of land situated in front of the house of the plaintiff. The house of the parties are adjacent to each other in the city of Udaipur. 2. The plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint has that in the area known as 'wdhiron-ki-Pole' and Ramdwara ka-chowk, in Udaipur he has got a house No. 12/320 the door of which opens towards the west on an 'Agnai' measuring 6'2"x 4'8". Just adjacent to the house of the plaintiff is the house of the defendant which opens towards the south. On the souther side of the house of the defendants there is another 'Agnai' measuring 10'2"x6'2". Both the Agnais' one belonging to the plaintiff and the other belonging to the defendants, are adjacent to each other. On the southern side of these 'Agnais' there is a common 'chowk'. It was alleged that the defendants constructed a stair case on their 'Agnai'. In constructing the stair case the defendants have usurped a small portion of the common 'chowk' measuring 10'x2". The door 'Agnai' of the plaintiff and the defendants were interfering in his peaceful possession by trespassing over the same. At the time of construction of the stair case the defendants were asked by the plaintiff not to make the construction, but the defendants paid no attention to it. It was therefore prayed that the defendants be restrained by a perpetual injunction from using the plaintiff's 'Agnai' and a mandatory injunction be also issued removing the encorachment made by the defendants on the common 'chowk' and the 'Agnai' of the plaintiff. 3. The defendant's denied the plaint allegations and pleaded that the stair case was constructed on a 'Chabutari' of their ownership. It was further pleaded that the Chabutari has been wrongly described as 'Agnai' by the plaintiff. 4. After recording the evidence the trial court party decreed the suit. The defendants were restrained from using, 'Agnai' measuring 6'2"x4'8" situated on the western side of the house of the plaintiff. A mandatory injunction was also issued asking the defendants to close the door of the stair case. Rest of the claim of the plaintiff was dismissed. 4. After recording the evidence the trial court party decreed the suit. The defendants were restrained from using, 'Agnai' measuring 6'2"x4'8" situated on the western side of the house of the plaintiff. A mandatory injunction was also issued asking the defendants to close the door of the stair case. Rest of the claim of the plaintiff was dismissed. The defendants filed an appeal and the learned Civil Judge by his judgement and decree dated April 10, 1973 affirmed the decree passed by the trial court. The defendants have, therefore, come up in second appeal to this Court. 5. As regards the ownership of the 'Agnai' measuring 6'2"x4'8", situated between the western side of the plaintiff's house, and the new built up stair case by the defendants, there is a concurrent finding of fact by two courts below that it belongs to the plaintiff. The scope of the power of this court to interfere in second appeal is indicated in Section 100, 101 and 103 Civil Procedure Code. Broadly the effect of Sections 100 and 101 read together is that a second appeal is competent only on the ground of an error of law and not on the ground of an error of fact. This court has no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact. Faced with this difficulty the learned counsel for the appellants has urged that both the courts below have erred in misreading the documents of title produced by the parties. The learned counsel further urged that the appellants purchased this property in dispute from one Kanaiyalal (DW2) wide Ex A1 & Kanaiyalal in turn purchased this property from Ranjeet Singh vide Ex. A2. He has read over Ex. A1 to me & has urged that in fact the 'Chabutra' described in this document is the disputed portion of land and the 'Patsal' described there is the 'chabutra' over which the stair case has been built. He further urged that the southern boundary of his house has been described as a common 'chowk' and if the disputed portion of the land had fallen to the share of the plaintiff then the southern boundary of his house in sale deed Ex. A1 would have been described as common 'chowk' and 'Agnai' owned by the plaintiff. He further urged that the southern boundary of his house has been described as a common 'chowk' and if the disputed portion of the land had fallen to the share of the plaintiff then the southern boundary of his house in sale deed Ex. A1 would have been described as common 'chowk' and 'Agnai' owned by the plaintiff. The significant absence of the word 'Agnai' in the description of the four-boundaries of the house mentioned in Ex. A1 is suggestive of the fact that the 'Agnai' in dispute formed part of the property belonging to the defendants. Though the argument is attractive but on scrutiny it does not hold water. 6. In para no. 2 of the plaint it has been mentioned that towards the western side of the plaintiff's house there is plaintiff's 'Agnai' measuring 6'2"x4'8". In para No. 4 of the plaint it has been further mentioned that on the southern side of the defendant's house there is an 'Agnai' measuring 10'2"x6'2" and adjacent to it there is a common 'chowk'. It has further been mentioned that this 'Agnai' is on the western side of the 'Agnai' of the plaintiff. The defendants in their written statement have denied the very existence of 'Agnai' and have stated that there is only one 'chabutra' which belongs to the defendants. A careful perusal of the record shows that at no stage of the case the defendants urged that the stair case was built on the portion described as 'Patsal' in Ex. A1. Such a case was not built in either of the two courts below and it is too late in the day to raise new plea which involves a question of fact. DW1 Devilal under cross-examination stated that his 'Agnai' measured 5'x6' to 7'. The two doors used to open on it. Just in front of them he constructed a stair case. He further admitted that this portion was paved with stones and the 'Agnai' in front of Nemichand's house viz. plaintiff was plastered with cement. He had been seeing this cement plaster since he purchased the house. He further admitted that the door of the newly constructed stair case opens on this 'Agnai'. He further admitted that this portion was paved with stones and the 'Agnai' in front of Nemichand's house viz. plaintiff was plastered with cement. He had been seeing this cement plaster since he purchased the house. He further admitted that the door of the newly constructed stair case opens on this 'Agnai'. The learned Judge placing reliance on the statements of the plaintiffs witnesses, as well as on a portion of the statement of Devilal (DW1) defendant came to the conclusion that the disputed 'Agnai' belonged to the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the appellant is correct when he says that Ex. A2 is of no avail to the plaintiff to prove his ownership of the property in dispute. The learned trial court and the first appellate court have not placed any reliance on this document. Moreover, the first appellate court found the document Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 of no help to the defendants to prove the ownership of the 'Agnai' in dispute, and as such the finding of fact arrived at by the first appellate court does not stand vitiated by misreading or any obscurity in the statement of the plaintiff. The total length and breadth of the 'chabutra' belonging to the defendants described by the defendant. Devilal under cross examination is 5'6' to 7'. This statement supports the case of the plaintiff. The total length of both the 'Agnai' shown in the map Ex. 1 is 15'2"x67'2". After deducting the length and breadth of the area claimed by the defendants from the total length and breadth of 'Agnai' the remaining portion exceed the area claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim is only regarding the piece of land measuring 6'2"x4'8". It is settled that this court in second appeal cannot re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the lower appellate court. The decision of the lower appellate court is final so far as the finding of fact is concerned. The only limited ground on which this Court can interfere in second appeal is that whether the decision of the appellate court is contrary to law; or suffers from substantial error or defect envisaged by section 100 Civil Procedure Code, leading to a wrong decision of the case on merits. The only limited ground on which this Court can interfere in second appeal is that whether the decision of the appellate court is contrary to law; or suffers from substantial error or defect envisaged by section 100 Civil Procedure Code, leading to a wrong decision of the case on merits. The learned counsel for the appellants has failed to show that the finding arrived at by the first appellate court suffers from any illegality, omission, error or defect such as is referred to in sub section (1) of section 100 Civil Procedure Code, or the decision is contrary to law. There is no doubt that there is evidence to sustain the finding of fact arrived by the lower appellate court. It cannot be said that the finding of fact arrived at by the first appellate court was such as no reasonable man could have arrived at on the material on record. 7. The result is that this appeal fails and the decree and judgement passed by the first appellate court and the trial court are affirmed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are ordered to bear their own costs of this court. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants prays for certifying the case to be a fit one for appeal under section 18 (2) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. The prayer is disallowed. *******