Judgment V.K. Sharma, J. Heard. In a suit for grant of a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction filed by the respondent herein, as plaintiff against the appellant herein, being the defendant, claiming right of passage to her residential house and factory-building located in Khasra No.331/313/238, through the land bearing Khasra No.311/238, measuring 0-2-0 bigha belonging to the defendant, who also filed a counter claim, alleging that the plaintiff has encroached upon his land, bearing Khasra No.311/238, measuring 0-2-0 bigha to the extent of 0-0-5 bigha, denoted by Khasra No.311/238/1. Both the suits as also the counter claim were dismissed by the learned trial court, against which whereas the plaintiff preferred an appeal, the defendant filed cross objections, which were also dismissed. It is how, the defendant is in second appeal before this Court. 2. The appeal is sought to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether both the Courts below have misread, misinterpreted and misconstrued oral as well as the documentary evidence of the parties especially the statement of DW-1 Sambhoo Ram, DW-2 Shri Nageshwar Dutt, Demarcation Report Ex. DW2/A and tatima Ex.DW2/B which has materially prejudiced the case of the appellant/defendant? 2. Whether the appellant/defendant is entitled for decree of possession of the land bearing Khasra No.311/238/1 measuring 0-0-5 bighas and the counter claim and cross objections filed by the appellant/defendant have been wrongly dismissed by both the Courts below, which has materially prejudiced the case of the appellant/defendant? 3. Whether the ld. First Appellate Court gravely fallen into error by rejecting the demarcation report Ex.DW2/A on the grounds that the plaintiff was not party to the demarcation application forgetting that her father in law was party in the demarcation application? 4. Whether one appeal filed by the plaintiff Kamla Devi was not maintainable as no appeal has been filed by her to the counter claim of the appellant/defendant? 5. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is collusive one and same is barred by constructive res-judicata in view of the earlier judgment Ex.DJ?” 3. A bare perusal of the above questions would go to show that apart from being general in nature, the same are based more on facts than law and as such cannot be said to be questions of law, much less substantial questions of law. A bare perusal of the above questions would go to show that apart from being general in nature, the same are based more on facts than law and as such cannot be said to be questions of law, much less substantial questions of law. Furthermore, even as per the plaintiff, the aforesaid land comprised of Khasra No.311/238/1, measuring 0-0-5 bigha, which according to him has been encroached upon by the plaintiff has been found to be in unlawful possession of her father-in-law, Sh. Charan Dass, who was not a party in the litigation before the learned Courts below. 4. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the defendant that liberty may be reserved to him to file a suit for possession against the said Sh. Charan Dass, in respect of the aforesaid land, measuring 0-0-5 bigha, comprised of Khasra No.311/238/1. However, no such permission can be granted in the present proceedings and more so, when the said Sh. Charan Dass, who was not a party to the litigation in the learned Courts below and is also not before this Court. However, needless to say that the defendant can always exercise his legal right in this regard, if otherwise entitled, in accordance with law, if so advised.