JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Defendant-appellant Vijay Kumar, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 8.10.2014, passed by the Additional District Judge(II), Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No.71-G/13/12, titled as Vijay Kumar v. Prem Chand, whereby judgment and decree dated 21.5.2012, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.II, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No.164/II/2009, titled as Prem Chand v. Vijay Kumar, stands affirmed. 2. Plaintiff-respondent Prem Chand, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for mandatory injunction, alleging that the land comprising Khasra Nos.773, 767, Khata No.77 min, Khatauni No.98 min, measuring 0-11-69 HM, situate in Mohal Basdi, Mauza Ghangesu, Tehhsil Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, hereinafter referred to the as the suit land, is owned and possessed by the defendant and his family members. Through the Meend (edge) of this land, a path (Lal Lakeer Rasta) leads to the land comprised in Khasra No.769, Khata No.78 min, which is owned and possessed by the plaintiff. It is alleged by the plaintiff that his land and the suit land was joint and was got partitioned by filing partition proceedings, being Case No.86TK, 2003, titled as Babu Ram v. Prem Chand, decided on 8.12.2003. In the order of partition also, the path stands mentioned upon the Meend of Khasra Nos.773 and 767 (suit land). The defendant is threatening to block the path by raising construction and has also stacked construction material over the suit land. 3. Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. Besides taking several preliminary objections, he has denied existence of any path over the suit land. He has also stated that there existed an old cow shed over the suit land, which fell during heavy rains and it is only on the old site that he has started raising construction. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether in the alternative plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction, as claimed? OPP 3. Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 5. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether in the alternative plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction, as claimed? OPP 3. Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his act, conduct and acquiescence from filing the suit? OPD 6. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD 7. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD 8. Whether plaintiff has concealed material facts from the Court, if so its effect? OPD 9. Whether suit is not property valued, if so its effect? OPD 10. Relief. 5. Trial Court decreed the suit in the following terms: “Judged in the light of my findings on issue Nos. 1 to 9 above, the suit of the plaintiff partly succeeds and is hereby partly decreed. The plaintiff is held entitled for the permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant from raising construction, blocking the path in the meend of suit land comprised in Khasra No.773, 767 of khata No.77 min, Khatauni No.98 min situated in Mohal Basdi, Mauza Ghangesu, Tehsil Jawalamukhi, District Kangra-HP. However, the relief of mandatory injunction is declined. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree-sheet be drawn up accordingly. File after due completion be consigned to Recordroom.” 6. Findings of fact, judgment and decree, so passed by the trial Court, stand affirmed by the lower appellate Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no case for interference is made out. No question of law, much-less substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the present appeal. 8. On the issue with regard to existence of path over the land in question, which was sought to be obstructed by the defendant, Courts below concurrently have referred to and relied upon revenue record (Ex.P-1, P- 2, P-3 and P-4). Suit property stood jointly owned between the parties/their predecessors-in-interest, which stood partitioned vide order dated 8.12.2003. Apparently, right of egress and ingress stood acknowledged and was reserved to the plaintiff through the land, which fact is evident from document (Ex. P-4), Aks Shajra Kistwar. Suit property stood jointly owned between the parties/their predecessors-in-interest, which stood partitioned vide order dated 8.12.2003. Apparently, right of egress and ingress stood acknowledged and was reserved to the plaintiff through the land, which fact is evident from document (Ex. P-4), Aks Shajra Kistwar. “Lal Lakeer Raasta” is reflected on the boundary of Khasra Nos.767, 768, 796 and 773. Court below, concurrently have recorded such findings of fact, which cannot be said to be perverse, illegal, erroneous or not based on complete and correct appreciation of testimony of the witnesses and the material on record, warranting interference by this Court. 9. No question of law, muchless substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the present appeal. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed and disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.