JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2006 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Bhilwara, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2004 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhilwara has been partly allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court has been modified. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the appellant-plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondent from demolishing the windows, which were overlooking the property of the respondent. It was, inter alia, claimed that plaintiffs have right of easement, whereby, they were getting light and air from the said windows, which were six in number alongwith six ventilators. 3. A written statement was filed by the respondent, inter alia, questioning the plea sought to be raised by the appellants. It was, inter alia, stated that an agreement was executed between the parties in the year 1971 and the appellants were bound to follow the said agreement and are not entitled to keep the windows and ventilators, which are beyond the said agreement. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that windows and ventilators were existing over 60 years and, therefore, the plaintiffs have right of light and air through the said windows and ventilators and has easementary right in this regard. Regarding the agreement, the trial court came to the conclusion that from the oral evidence, it was apparent that windows and ventilators were used for over 60 years. Ultimately, the trial court decreed the suit and injuncted the respondents from interfering in the plaintiffs' use of the said windows and ventilators. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant-respondent filed first appeal. The first appellate court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the fact that the six windows and ventilators were existing for over 60 years was not proved and the plaintiffs were entitled to keep windows only in accord with the agreement (Ex.-1) and, consequently, partly allowed the appeal, set aside the decree passed by the trial court and passed a decree verbatim in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. 6. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the first appellate court was not justified in interfering with the findings of the trial court, once it was proved on record that the plaintiffs were using the windows and ventilators for getting light and air, they had an easementary right to continue to enjoy the same and, therefore, the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent duly supported the judgment passed by the first appellate court. It was submitted that the claim that the windows and ventilators were being used for over 60 years was absolutely baseless and, therefore, the first appellate court was justified in decreeing the suit only to the extent of agreement between the parties. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record of the trial court. 9. A bare look at the agreement (Ex.-1) entered into between the parties, execution of which has not been denied by any of the parties, reveals that the claim of the plaintiffs that the six windows and ventilators were existing for over 60 years does not appear to be correct inasmuch as there is no reference whatsoever regarding the alleged existing six windows and ventilators and what is indicated in the agreement is only a window. 10. The very fact that the said windows have appeared after the agreement, which is dated 16.08.1971, by itself negates the claim of the plaintiffs that the six windows and ventilators were being used for over 60 years. 11. The first appellate court has reproduced the agreement (Ex.-1) entered into between the parties verbatim and has passed the decree in favour of the appellants in the same terms, which cannot be faulted on any ground. It cannot be said that the finding recorded by the first appellate court regarding the age of the windows and ventilators is perverse. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.Consequently, there is no substance in the second appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******