JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsels. 2. By the concurrent decrees, the two Courts below have decreed the suit filed by plaintiff-respondents against the present appellant defendants holding that the latrine portion construction by them ad-measuring 2' x 2.3' on the first floor roof top has to be removed at the cost of defendants since while purchasing the ground floor room and first floor room the defendants have not purchased the floor first roof rights. 3. The Courts below have held that the said property divided into two portions of ground floor two rooms and having a common stair case in between, the first floor roof top was divided into four sons of Khema; the family pedigree is given in the plaint itself. Vide gift deed (Bekshishnama) Ex. I/A the respondent Khema Ji has given first floor right in favour of Chunni Lal husband of plaintiff No. I Smt. Kanku Bai and father of plaintiff No. 2 Amba Lal. Though the defendants have purchased the ground floor right and first floor room from the respective co- sharers but the rights over the first floor roof over the ground floor room were not purchased by the plaintiffs and the construction of latrine on such roof top was found to be wrong and without any right and therefore, the learned Courts below decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs and held that the defendants should remove the latrine constructed over the first floor roof. 4. Having perused the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.7.2006 passed by learned Addl. District judge No. 3, Udaipur and judgment and decree dated 12.5.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Udaipur and Ex. 1/A (Gift Deed) and the map with which the learned counsel for the appellant defendants tried to explain the site, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal for consideration by this Court and the injunction suit has been rightly decreed by the Courts below. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******