JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - This is a defendant's second appeal. It arises out of a suit for injunction. The plaintiffs prayed that the defendants may be permanently restrained from raising constructions over a certain land. The trial court found that the plaintiffs were in exclusive possession over the land in suit. It, therefore, decreed the suit and injuncted the defendants from raising any constructions over the land in suit. The defendants felt aggrieved and went up in appeal. The appellate court has recorded a finding that the parties, who are co-sharers, are in joint possession. It has maintained the decree of the trial court with certain modifications. Dissatisfied, the defendants have come to this court in second appeal. 2. The lower appellate court has recorded a categorical finding that the defendants have not been able to establish adverse possession as pleaded by them. It also negatived the case of the plaintiffs that they are in exclusive possession over the land in dispute. It has held that the parties are in joint possession. The lower appellate court has, therefore, restrained the defendants from raising any construction over the land in dispute. It has further restrained the defendants from interfering in the joint possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute. The finding as to whether any party is in exclusive possession or are in joint possession is basically a finding of fact. That finding has neither been successfully assailed nor can it be. It is nobody's case that lower appellate court has either ignored, any material on record or has based its finding on no evidence. Once the finding of joint possession is maintained, no party can be permitted either to raise construction to the detriment of the other or to interfere with the joint possession of the other. 3. The appeal has no substance. It is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.