Paramjeet Singh, J. The suit out of which this regular second appeal arises was for perpetual and mandatory injunction whereby the respondent-plaintiff had prayed for restraining the defendant from encroaching upon or raising any sort of construction over the gair mumkin passage 'sare-aam', comprised in khewat No. 180, khatauni No. 222, khasra No. 423 situated within the revenue estate of village Gobindpura, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana and from interfering in the use of passage by the plaintiff and also prayed for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the encroachment measuring 23' 9" x 3' 6" marked as ABCD shown in green colour in the site plan attached with the plaint, illegally and forcibly raised by the defendant over the passage 'sare aam'. 2. The Court of first instance decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 14.08.2012. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 09.10.2013. 3. The details facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts relevant for disposal of this regular second appeal are that plaintiff-Nachhattar Singh approached the Civil Court seeking a decree for perpetual and mandatory injunction alleging that he along with his brothers Harchand Singh and Sewa Singh were co-owners of gair-mumkin abadi comprised in khasra No. 421(1B-9-B). The defendant was co-owner of gair mumkin abadi comprised in khasra Nos. 422 and 424. The land comprised in khasra No. 423 was gair mumkin passage and the defendant had no right or title in the said passage except to use the same as passage. In the month of April, 2008, the defendant started raising construction in the land comprised in khasra Nos. 423 and 424 and threatened to open windows, doors and ventilators towards the land comprised in khasra No. 421. 4. Upon notice, the defendant put in appearance and filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is denied that there is any encroachment upon the passage comprised in khasra No. 423 as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendant never intended to open any door, window or ventilator of her house into khasra No. 421 in which she is not a co-sharer. Bhupinder Singh, Kanungo after demarcation found that the defendant was raising construction of her house in khasra Nos. The defendant never intended to open any door, window or ventilator of her house into khasra No. 421 in which she is not a co-sharer. Bhupinder Singh, Kanungo after demarcation found that the defendant was raising construction of her house in khasra Nos. 422 and 424 and the house under construction was found at a distance of 8' from khasra No. 421. 5. In order to controvert the averments made in the written statement, the plaintiff filed replication reiterating the averments made in the plaint and denying the averments made in the written statement. 6. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Court of first instance framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 4-A Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP 5. Relief. 7. The parties were afforded opportunity to lead their respective evidence. After appreciating the evidence, both the courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed the instant second appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 9. The Court of first instance vide judgment and decree dated 14.08.2012 decreed the suit and a categorical finding has been recorded that perusal of report Ex. P-1 prepared by Chhajju Singh (PW 3), who was appointed local commissioner by the Court in earlier civil suit No. 157/08.04.2008 filed by the plaintiff against the defendant and had demarcated the disputed land in the presence of parties, reveals that the defendant has constructed a part of her house in the land measuring 5 karams on eastern side, 5 karams on western side, 5 kari (3'-4") on northern side and 5 kari (3' 4") on southern side over land comprised in khasra No. 423. The defendant has raised the construction of her house on the land comprised in khasra No. 423 as shown in green colour in the 'Naksha Mauka Tawafat', Ex. P-2. The defendant in her examination-in-chief, admitted about encroachment by her in the land comprised in khasra No. 423. The defendant has raised the construction of her house on the land comprised in khasra No. 423 as shown in green colour in the 'Naksha Mauka Tawafat', Ex. P-2. The defendant in her examination-in-chief, admitted about encroachment by her in the land comprised in khasra No. 423. It has also been recorded that the defendant never claimed that report (Ex. P-1) prepared by Chajju Singh (PW 3) is incorrect and does not depict the correct position at the spot. The defendant never raised any objection to the said report and the same remained un-rebutted and unchallenged. The said findings of the Court of first instance have been affirmed by lower Appellate Court. 10. No other point has been urged. 11. Concurrent findings of facts have been recorded by both the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show that the said findings are perverse or illegal or based on misreading, non-reading or mis-appreciation of the material evidence on record. Consequently, the said findings of fact do not warrant interference in regular second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication in this second appeal. Dismissed in limine. _