JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is defendants seconds appeal arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents for a permanent injunction and for demolition of the construction raised by the defendants-appellants. The suit was filed on the allegation that the defendants-appellants had encroached on the rasta land. Initially they had made construction on the very rasta land which was got demolished by the Municipal Board. The suit had to be filed when they were again attempting to make the construction on the said rasta land. The trial court recorded a finding that the disputed road is 22 ft., in width and that the appellants were not the owners over which they were making the constructions. In appeal the appellate court has also come to the conclusion that the defendant-appellants had encroached upon the land of the passage which was 22 ft., in width and that they had no right or title to do so. The defendants have come up in appeal before this court. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the findings recorded by the lower appellate court. I have examined the judgments of both the courts below and I find that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below are based on evidence and they do not suffer from any legal infirmity. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any legal error in the said judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the plaintiff-respondents have failed to prove the special damages and hence they are not entitled to the amount claimed in the suit. 4. The present suit had been filed in the representative capacity under Order 1, rule 8, C.P.C. It is clear from the record that the land in dispute was left for the purposes of the passage for other inhabitants of the colony. The special damages, is, therefore, ex-facie and it was not necessary for the appellate court to record any specific finding in regard to the special damages, the view taken by the appellate court that it should be deemed that special damages shall be suffered by the plaintiff-respondents is a view sustainable in law and I do not find any legal infirmity in the said finding. 5. In the result, there is no force in this appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.