JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Plaintiff Sukhbir Singh Chaudhary, having failed in both the courts below, has filed this second appeal. 2. The dispute is between the neighbours i.e. plaintiff-appellant and defendant-respondent no.1 Manish Jain. Plaintiff raised grievance about wall constructed by defendant no.1 in his own house in South-West corner and also regarding steps made by defendant no.1 in front of his house in the street/lane. Plaintiff alleged that by raising the disputed wall, defendant no.1 has obstructed air and light to the house of the plaintiff, who was enjoying the same for more than 20 years and had acquired right of easement by prescription for the same. 3. Defendant no.1 resisted the claim of the plaintiff and denied the plaintiff’s averments. Defendant no.1 also raised counter-claim regarding ramp constructed by plaintiff in front of his house and also regarding gate of his house opening towards street. 4. Both the courts below have dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, whereas counter-claim of defendant no.1 was decreed by the trial court, but the same has also been reversed and dismissed by the lower appellate court. 5. I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff-appellant had been enjoying the free flow of air and light for more than 20 years before defendant no.1 obstructed the same by raising the disputed wall and plaintiff had acquired right of easement in this regard. 7. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but the same cannot be accepted. 8. The plaintiff has himself stated in the witness-box that he allowed defendant no.1 to raise scaffolding in the house of the plaintiff for construction of the disputed wall. It would depict that the disputed wall was constructed by defendant no.1 in his house not only without any objection from the plaintiff, but in fact, with implied consent of the plaintiff. Faced with this situation, counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff appellant was not aware that defendant no.1 would raise the height of the wall to the extent it has been raised. This contention is also untenable because plaintiff did not object to the construction of the wall, when it was being constructed up to the height, to which it has been constructed. This contention is also untenable because plaintiff did not object to the construction of the wall, when it was being constructed up to the height, to which it has been constructed. On the contrary, counsel for the appellant submitted that the wall was constructed in the year 2002, whereas the instant suit was instituted in the year 2004. Thus, even the suit was also not instituted immediately after the wall had been constructed by defendant no.1 to objectionable height. 9. There is concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff for the reasons aforesaid as well as for other reasons recorded by the courts below. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. There is no ground to interfere with the said finding. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------