Short Note : The defendant-appellant had constructed the wall on a parcel of land situate in between two houses. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit land exclusively belonged to them and the appellant had unlawfully occupied it by raising a wall there. Plaintiffs, therefore, prayed for mandatory injunction for getting the wall demolished and for possession of the open land. The suit was resisted by the appellant making averments that by virtue of the partition deed Ex.P/6 the suit land had fallen to his share and hence he had constructed the wall within his own limits. The trial Court held that according to the partition deed the land in dispute was kept for a joint passage; and as the appellant did not trespass on the suit land by constructing the wall, the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief sought. In appeal, the lower appellate Court was of the view that when the land was kept vacant for the joint use of both the parties, the appellant could not construct a wall on it. Held: Both the Courts below have come to the finding that vide Ex.P/6, the suit land was kept for the joint use of the parties for the purpose of a passage. As the appellant constructed the wall on the said land, the lower appellate Court held that it was an interference in the joint use of the land and hence the wall ought to be removed. These arc findings of facts arrived at by the Court below and, therefore, they cannot be disturbed in second appeal. When the appellant raised a wall on the common passage the right of the respondents was really affected and hence he could bring the suit for mandatory injunction for the demolition of the wall in question. Appeal dismissed with cost. AIR 1926 Lahore 52 distinguished.