JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20-8-2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Civil Judge has decreed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff and has dismissed the counter claim filed by appellant, and also aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20- 7-2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the judgment and decree dated 20-8-2009, the appellant has challenged both the judgments and decrees in this second appeal. 2. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a civil suit against the defendant-appellants for permanent injunction that the plot No.86 situated at Shanti Niketan Colony, Jaipur belonged to him as Jaipur Development Authority has issued lease deed in his favour. On western side of his plot, the plot No.85, belonging to defendant is situated. Between the plots No.85 and 86 a charpeta wall, described in the map as A to B, belonging to plaintiff is situated. The plaintiff claimed that on the wall A to B, the defendant has put construction A to C from ground floor to first floor, and C to D part he has put the construction upto the length of 6 feet. The plaintiff wanted to raise construction on 'charpeta wall' C to D, but the defendants are not allowing him to raise the construction. Therefore, the plaintiff prayed for restraining the defendants from making any interference in his construction work. 3. The defendant-appellants, filed written statement and also the counter claim that the wall between the plots No.85 and 86 is of 4 inch (width) and 6 feet (length). The parties with their mutual consent put construction of the wall of garage part, and expenses of which was borne by both the parties. Both the parties have also decided that both parties will leave 10-10 ft open space towards the common wall from the garage part to main gate. But the plaintiff has illegally constructed latrine and both-room over the common wall, and when the defendant objected the same, the plaintiff started to quarrel. A criminal case was also lodged against the defendant. It was further claimed that initially the plaintiff assured to later on shift the latrine, and bath-room from the common wall, but now plaintiff wants to raise construction illegally. As such easementary right of defendant is affected. A criminal case was also lodged against the defendant. It was further claimed that initially the plaintiff assured to later on shift the latrine, and bath-room from the common wall, but now plaintiff wants to raise construction illegally. As such easementary right of defendant is affected. The defendant prayed to dismiss the suit, and to restrain the plaintiff from raising construction over the common wall. 4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the learned trial court had framed three issues. The plaintiff examined himself as witness and exhibited the documents. Similarly, the defendants examined themselves and exhibited documents. 5. Vide judgment dated 20-8-2009, the learned trial court decreed the suit of plaintiff, and dismissed the counter claim of defendant, and restrained the defendants from making any hindrance in construction work of plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants-appellant preferred the appeal, before the learned first appellate court. But the learned Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 20-7-2010 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court. Hence, the present second appeal before this court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, has vehemently contended that although the plaintiff has claimed that the wall upon which he intends to raise construction, is a "charpeta wall", but the fact remains that it is a common wall. Moreover, being a common wall, the suit of the plaintiff should not have been decreed in his favour. According to the learned counsel, instead of raising construction on common wall, the plaintiff-respondent should have raised the construction away from the common wall, so as not to damage the common wall shared by the appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the impugned judgments of the courts below. 8. The question whether the wall is 'common wall' or 'charpeta wall' is clearly a question of fact, and not of law. The question as to whether the construction should be raised by the plaintiff-respondent, is again not a question of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to prove substantial question of law, which are involved in the present appeal. Since the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law, it is not maintainable. 9. There is no merit in this second appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******