JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 4.9.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali, whereby the judgment and decree dated 16.7.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sumerpur has been upheld. 2. The facts, in brief, may be noticed thus: the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the appellants-defendants regarding lane existing at Village Koselav. 3. It was claimed that the plaintiff has ventilators, windows and rain water out-lets in the said public lane, however, the defendants were bent upon trespassing and including the same in their property and therefore, they be injuncted from doing so. 4. The defendants filed a written statement and claimed ownership of the lane and submitted that opening of ventilators, windows etc. in the lane was illegal and the suit was liable to be dismissed. 5. The trial court framed five issues and after oral and documentary evidence was led by the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the suit lane was public lane and the same was being used for ventilation and rain water out-lets by the plaintiff, the defendants were not entitled to get the ventilators, windows and rain water out-lets closed and ultimately decreed the suit and restrained the appellants-defendants from trespassing on the lane, raising construction and from closing the ventilators, windows and rain water out-lets of the plaintiff. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal under Section 96 CPC. The appellate court after hearing the parties confirmed the findings recorded by the trial court regarding the nature of the suit lane and rights of the plaintiff/defendants qua the said lane and dismissed the appeal. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that both the courts below fell in error in coming to the conclusion that the suit lane was public and consequently, the suit could not have been decreed and the appeal was liable to be allowed by the lower appellate court. It is submitted that the appeal give rise to substantial questions of law and therefore, the same deserves to be admitted. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the judgments passed by both the courts below. 9. It is submitted that the appeal give rise to substantial questions of law and therefore, the same deserves to be admitted. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the judgments passed by both the courts below. 9. A perusal of both the judgments reveal that the courts after thoroughly and critically examining the oral and documentary evidence available on record has come to a categoric conclusion that the suit lane was public in nature and the defendants had no right to obstruct the same and to raise construction over the said land. The courts below took into consideration the Commissioner's report, photographs and agreement entered into between the defendants and one Chela Ram for coming to the conclusion regarding the nature of the lane. The consideration made by the courts below cannot be said to be perverse and the findings of fact regarding nature of the suit property as concluded by concurrent decisions of both the courts below, does not give rise to any substantial question of law in this second appeal. 10. Consequently, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******