JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- CM No. 11072.C of 2012 This is application for impleading legal representatives of Hari Chand plaintiff no. 2 since deceased. It is alleged that plaintiff no. 2 has left behind 3 sons and 3 daughters mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application (appellants no. 2 to 7) as his only legal heirs. The application is accompanied by affidavit. Accordingly, the application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and appellants no. 2 to 7 are ordered to be impleaded as legal representatives of plaintiff no. 2 Hari Chand since deceased for the purpose of this appeal. RSA No. 40651 of 2012 This is second appeal by plaintiff no. 1 Vijay Kumar and legal representatives of plaintiff no. 2 Hari Chand having been non-suited by both the courts below. 2. The plaintiffs alleged that plaintiff no. 1 is owner of houses no. 5769 and 5769/1 whereas plaintiff no. 2 is owner of houses no. 5767/68. Houses of plaintiffs include stores and latrines depicted in the site plan. 3. Defendant no. 1 purchased property no. 5796/4 vide sale deed dated 11.7.1989. However, the open land measuring 11' 6" x 6' 4" did not belong to vendors of defendant no. 1. This is open space vesting in defendant no. 2 Municipal Council (proforma defendant no. 2). Plaintiffs’ grievance is that defendant no. 1 wanted to reconstruct her property as godown and she wanted to demolish latrines and stores of the plaintiffs so as to encroach upon the land of the plaintiffs. Defendant no. 1 also wanted to open windows etc. and to make projection over the said land without any right to do so. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining defendant no. 1 from doing so. Defendant no. 1 contested the suit and controverted the plaint averments. Occupation of plaintiffs over the houses was admitted. However, the disputed latrines and stores were pleaded to be unauthorized construction in public street by encroaching upon the same. Consequently, the same are liable to be demolished. There was no construction in front of the house purchased by defendant no. 1. Doors and windows of the said house were opening towards east in the common street. There is public street between houses of the plaintiffs on the one hand and house of defendant no. 1 on the other. Consequently, the same are liable to be demolished. There was no construction in front of the house purchased by defendant no. 1. Doors and windows of the said house were opening towards east in the common street. There is public street between houses of the plaintiffs on the one hand and house of defendant no. 1 on the other. The said street is meant for use by all residents of the locality including defendant no. 1. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved, this second appeal has been filed. 5. I have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. 6. It has come in the evidence of the plaintiffs themselves that the disputed latrines and stores claimed by them are not part of their houses but are rather situated across the street from their houses. There is public street between their houses and disputed stores and latrines. Plaintiffs even tried to claim the public street to be their own street but failed in this attempt. Their own witness Anil Kumar admitted that there are other houses in the street and occupants of the said other houses also have a right to use the same. It is, thus, manifest from the plaintiffs’ own evidence that there is public street at the site in dispute and the disputed latrines and stores of the plaintiffs exist on part of the public street. In the garb of the instant suit, they want to perpetuate their illegal occupation on the said street. The plaintiffs have alleged fault on the part of defendant no. 1. However, the boot lies on the other leg. The plaintiffs themselves are the defaulters. 7. Counsel for the appellants contended that disputed stores and latrines are existing on the disputed site for more than 70 years. However, there is no cogent evidence to depict that the said structures are existing for 70 years. Moreover, even if it be so, the plaintiffs have no right to perpetuate the same on the public street. 8. Counsel for the appellants also referred to site plan produced by them. However, on the basis of the site plan, it cannot be said that the disputed site belongs to the plaintiffs. Moreover, even if it be so, the plaintiffs have no right to perpetuate the same on the public street. 8. Counsel for the appellants also referred to site plan produced by them. However, on the basis of the site plan, it cannot be said that the disputed site belongs to the plaintiffs. There is no document on record to show that the plaintiffs are owners of the site underneath the disputed stores and latrines. 9. Reference by counsel for the appellants to written statement of defendant no. 2 Municipal Council is also uncalled for because it would not show that the disputed site is part of houses of the plaintiffs. On the basis of plaintiffs’ objection, necessary modification was allegedly made by defendant no. 2 in building plan of defendant no. 1. It goes without saying that if defendant no. 1 raises any construction in violation of the building plan sanctioned by defendant no. 2 – Municipal Council, it shall be open to defendant no. 2 to take appropriate action in accordance with law. However, it does not give any right to the plaintiffs to encroach upon part of the public street. 10. Concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below to nonsuit the plaintiffs is justified by the evidence on record and is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence on record. The said finding does not warrant interference by this court in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. 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------------