Judgment Sanjay Yadav,J:- Heard on admission. Parties are referred to as they stood before the Trial Court. This Second Appeal at the instance of the plaintiff is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 3.10.2012 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur partly decreeing the Appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 3.12.1998 passed in Civil Suit No. 524 A/98 by Third Civil Judge Class I, Jabalpur. Kapoor Chand Jain, owner of the part of House No. 138-139 situated at Darhai, Sarafa Ward, Jabalpur had filed a suit for declaration that the unauthorised construction raised over the common passage 5' x 85' by the defendants, owner of other part of House No. 138-139 be demolished and a permanent injunction that the defendants shall not create any hindrance over common passage (referred as suit premises). Present appellants are the legal heirs of Kapoor Chand Jain, who had expired during pendency of First Appeal. The suit allegation, were that the defendants besides extending balcony towards the suit premises had also constructed the stair case with its landing over common passage which has caused inconvenience to use the common passage. The defendants besides filing the written statement also filed the counter claim. And while denying the allegation regarding construction of balcony the defendants stated that the projection and balcony was already in existence and only repair work was being carried out and that no construction was raised. The defendants sought declaration vide counter claim that the plaintiff be directed to remove the water tank constructed in front of the defendants main door and the wall constructed over common passing. The trial Court framed following issues :- (i) whether there exist a common passage and the defendants have constructed the Balcony 1.5 feet unauthorisedly. (ii) whether the defendants have started constructing the staircase from the common passage. (iii) (a) whether plaintiff has constructed a water tank and sewage line over the suit premises. (iii) (b) whether plaintiff has obstructed the common passage by installing a jet pump. (iii) (c) whether plaintiff has constructed a wall over suit premises. (iv) Special compensation, relief and costs. Parties led their evidence. (iii) (a) whether plaintiff has constructed a water tank and sewage line over the suit premises. (iii) (b) whether plaintiff has obstructed the common passage by installing a jet pump. (iii) (c) whether plaintiff has constructed a wall over suit premises. (iv) Special compensation, relief and costs. Parties led their evidence. The trial Court on the basis of material evidence on record found both the parties at fault and answering all the issues in affirmative, partly decreed the suit and the counter claim, directing that the defendants should demolish 1.5' projection and shall not raise any construction over the suit premises. That the plaintiff shall remove the water tank, wall and the jet pump installed over the suit premises and shall not raise any construction over the suit premises. Aggrieved, the plaintiff and defendants filed appeals respectively as Civil Appeal No. 6 A/2012 and Civil Appeal No. 16 A/2012. The first Appellate Court while partly dismissing the Appeal by the plaintiff, allowed the defendant's Appeal by impugned Judgment and Decree. While allowing the Appeal preferred by the defendants against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.8.2007 whereby they were directed to remove the projection of 1.5 feet the First Appellate Court found from the material evidence on record that the questioned balcony had pre-existed when the defendants purchased the residential house and found it to be constructed by the previous owner and that the plaintiff in his evidence had accepted the fact that the balcony in question was not causing any hindrance in the case of common passage. These findings since are based on cogent evidence on record and that no material having been commended at, to establish that the findings suffer from vice of perversity, no interference is warranted. Further contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the first Appellate Court committed grave error in interfering with the direction by the trial Court to the defendants to remove the stair case constructed over the passage, merits no substance when adjudged on the basis of the findings by the First Appellate Court in paragraph 26 of the impugned Judgment and Decree. Wherein, on the basis of the evidence, PW-1 (Kapoor Chand) and PW-2 (Bhurelal Jain) and of DW-1 (Ajay Soni) that no stair case has been constructed. Wherein, on the basis of the evidence, PW-1 (Kapoor Chand) and PW-2 (Bhurelal Jain) and of DW-1 (Ajay Soni) that no stair case has been constructed. ^^26--------------lhf<+;ksa ds fuekZ.k ds laca/k esa bl lk{kh us Li"V :i ls badkj fd;k gSA Lo;a ¼ok-lk-&1½ diwjpUn us vius dFku dh dafMdk&5 esa ;g crk;k gS fd izfroknhx.k us lh<+h dk fuekZ.k vxy dj fy;k gSA ¼ok-lk-&2½ Hkwjsyky tSu us vius dFku dh dafMdk&10 esa ;g crk;k gS fd izfroknhx.k us dkeu iSlst esa dksbZ lh<+h dk fuekZ.k ugha fd;k gSA blh dafMdk esa mlus Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izfroknhx.k }kjk dkeu iSlst dh Hkwfe ij vfrdze.k ugha fd;k x;k gSA dafMdk&13 esa ;gh lk{kh Lohdkj djrk gS fd izfroknhx.k }kjk ckyduh ds fuekZ.k ls fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks fdlh izdkj dksbZ ck/kk ugha gksrh gSA^^ Furthermore, the affirmation of the findings regarding plaintiff having authorized constructed the wall, water tank, and installation of jet pump over the suit premises being based on cogent and material evidence on record, no substantial question of law arises as would warrant an interference. In the result, second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.