JUDGMENT T.S. Misra, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree passed by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Jhansi dated 14-9-1973. The dispute arose between members of a family. It was alleged that Punnu the defendant had no right, title and interest in the land lying towards the south as also towards the east of his house shown by letters, ABCD in the site plan annexed to the plaint. The plaintiff claimed right in that land as the defendant Punnu was threatening to open doors and windows in the southern and eastern walls of his aforesaid house an injunction to restrain him from doing so was asked for. The suit was resisted by the defendant Punnu who claimed right, title and interest in the land lying towards the south and towards the east of his house ABCD. He therefore, asserted that he had a right to open doors and windows and the plaintiff had no right to stop him from doing so. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their contentions. The trial court held that the open land lying towards the south and towards the east of the defendants house ABCD belonged to the plaintiff and that the defendant was not entitled to open doors and windows towards the east and south of his house. The suit was accordingly decreed as prayed. Against the judgment an appeal was preferred by punnu the defendant. The appellate court below concurring with the findings reached by the trial, court dismissed the appeal. The defendant Punnu aggrieved by that decision has preferred this second appeal. 2. During the pendency of the appeal an application was moved by the defendant seeking permission to file additional evidence. He wants to file certified copy of the plaint of Suit no. 122 of 1970 of the Court of Munsif Jhansi, a certified copy of the written statement filed in that suit as also certified copies of the statements of Kalika Prasad and Har Charan Lal made in that suit Certified copies of the judgments of the trial court as also the appellate court in suit no. 122 of 1970 and Civil appeal no. 122 of 1970 and Civil appeal no. 19 of 1979 respectively have also been filed and permission has been sought to bring them on the record of this case Punnu died during the pendency of the instant second appeal and his legal representatives have been brought on the record. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that a perusal of the aforesaid documents which are now sought to be brought on the record of this case would indicate that Kalika Prasad the respondent had no title in the land lying towards the south and east of the defendants house ; hence he had no right to seek injunction and maintain the suit. I have gone through the said documents with a view to find out whether it would be necessary to bring them on the record for rendering effectual and complete justice in the case. Pannu was impleaded as proforma defendant in suit no. 122 of 1970 and it was specifically stated in the plaint that no relief was asked for against him. That suit related to partition amongst other brothers of the plaintiff Kalika Prasad. The Judgment of the District Judge, Jhansi, in Civil appeal no. 19 of 1979 clearly records a finding that Punnus share was confined only to the four walls of his house and did not extend to the open land on the east or south of his house. So even in that case also it was held that Punnu had no right, title and interest in the land lying towards the south also towards the east of his house ABCD. These documents, however, read as evidence in the instant case do not improve the case set up on behalf of Punnu ; rather they speak eloquently against him. I allow the applicants-appellants to bring these documents on the record of this case. Now the documents presently furnished as also the evidence as was already brought on the record go to indicate that Punnu the defendant had no right, title and interest in any portion of the land lying towards the east or towards the south of his house ABCD. This was the finding reached by the trial court as also by the appellate court below. This finding being on a question of fact based on appreciation of evidence is conclusive. I see no reason to interfere with the same. This was the finding reached by the trial court as also by the appellate court below. This finding being on a question of fact based on appreciation of evidence is conclusive. I see no reason to interfere with the same. The courts below were therefore correct in granting the injunction prayed for by the plaintiff in the suit which has given rise to the instant appeal. 3. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. However as the parties are closely related to each other they are directed to bear their own costs.