JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. The appellants-defendants have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC against impugned judgment and decree dated 16th March 2010, passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Udaipur camp Salumber (learned lower appellate Court), affirming the judgment and decree dated 18th October 2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Salumber, Udaipur (learned trial Court) whereby the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for permanent and mandatory injunction against appellants-defendants was decreed. 2. The matrix of the facts, relevant for disposal of the present appeal, as emanating from the record, are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against appellants-defendants for mandatory and permanent injunction for removing illegal construction inter-alia stating that the houses of plaintiff and defendants are situated in Ward No.5 of Salumber town and for ingress and egress they have to pass through an arched gateway on a narrow lane of 4 ft constructed in the year of 2000 for the inhabitants residing inside the said gateway. According to the plaintiff, his house situate in the northern side and the main gate opens toward southern side to which approach is only from the said lane which belongs to Municipal Board. It is averred that defendant No.1 without permission of Municipal Board and against compromise dated 21.12.1998 arrived at between them has illegally constructed latrine and bathroom measuring 7'X3.5' and defendant No.1 to 4 have illegally raised projection in the back side of their house and thereby flouted the compromise and are causing nuisance. According to plaintiff, due to illegal structure in the south-west corner of the house of defendant No.1 fourth feet lane has been fully covered by the projected/cantilever structure and to that extent the lane is now blocked to sky and possibility of illegal encroachments by others in future from the corner of lane has increased manifold which would lead to closure of the way of the plaintiff, therefore, illegal construction needs to be removed. It is further averred in the plaint that plaintiff submitted an application to the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Salumber for staying illegal construction bringing to his notice that defendants have covered the lane which is the only way of approach to the plaintiff's house but of no avail. It is further averred in the plaint that plaintiff submitted an application to the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Salumber for staying illegal construction bringing to his notice that defendants have covered the lane which is the only way of approach to the plaintiff's house but of no avail. Prayer was made in the suit for issuing mandatory and permanent injunction to remove illegal construction made in the lane and by issuing mandatory and permanent injunction the Municipal Board be directed to remove illegal construction raised in the lane and the defendants be bound not to cover the lane in question and also not to create any nuisance. 3. Appellants-defendants filed written statement refuting the averments made in the plaint and stated that the defendants have acted in accordance with the compromise and have not covered the way or raised any illegal construction. According to them, construction of the latrine and bathroom was as per compromise and no obstruction was created in the way of plaintiff. It is averred that the projection is raised at a height of 10.5' from ground as cantilever in the southern side of the house of defendants where a window opens towards the lane and one feet Aliya is also already there as such the defendants have got the right of use and occupation of the structure raised as they have not raised any construction flouting the condition of compromise. They prayed for dismissal the suit. 4. Municipal Board, respondent-defendant No.5 also filed written statement admitting the houses of plaintiff and defendants in Salumber at the pointed place and their approach through the arched gateway, however, while denying its ownership on the lane, it is averred that the lane belongs to the people residing inside the arched gateway, as such, its permission is not required. Defendant-respondent No.5 also averred that it had no knowledge about the compromise but when the application was submitted by plaintiff for staying illegal construction then notice was given to the defendants, who in reply denied having made any construction and taken the plea of renovating old house. The stand of the Municipal Board was that as the lane does not belong to it, it has no jurisdiction interfere in the matter, and sought dismissal of suit with costs. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, three issues were framed by the trial court to the following effect: 1. The stand of the Municipal Board was that as the lane does not belong to it, it has no jurisdiction interfere in the matter, and sought dismissal of suit with costs. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, three issues were framed by the trial court to the following effect: 1. Whether on the basis of compromise plaintiff is entitled to get mandatory and permanent injunction against defendants in respect of disputed part of the adjoining house? 2. Whether the defendants have raised construction in compliance of compromise dated 21.12.1998 as such the suit filed against defendants entails rejection? 3. Relief. 6. In order to strengthen the case, the plaintiff, besides examining himself as P.W.1, examined one more witness Nihalchand as P.W.2 and thereafter pursuant to order of the Court again got himself examined as P.W.3 and marked compromise Ex.1. To nullify the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendants examined D.W.1 Sunil Sewak as well as one Narayanan as D.W.2 and marked documents Exs.D/1 & D/2. 7. After recording the evidence adduced by parties, the learned trial Court heard the parties and thereafter by a judgment and decree dated 18.10.2008 decreed the suit and mandatory and permanent injunction was issued directing defendants No.1 to 4 to remove the structure at their own cost within a period of two months else the plaintiff would be free to remove the same and recover the expenses incurred in removal of the said projection from defendants. 8. Feeling dismayed with the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, appellants- defendants approached learned lower appellate Court and the learned lower appellate Court examined the matter de-novo in light of the evidence, which was available on record. The learned lower appellate Court, on critical evaluation of the evidence available on record, fully concurred with the findings and conclusions of learned trial Court and dismissed the first appeal. Challenging the same, the defendants have preferred the instant Second Appeal. 9. The point for determination in this Second Appeal is whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below suffer from any material irregularity? 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused impugned judgments of both the Courts below and scanned the record of the case. 11. Challenging the same, the defendants have preferred the instant Second Appeal. 9. The point for determination in this Second Appeal is whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below suffer from any material irregularity? 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused impugned judgments of both the Courts below and scanned the record of the case. 11. Upon perusal of impugned judgments, it is amply clear that matter has been thrashed out threadbare by both the Courts below while recording a categorical finding against the appellants-defendants. The finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below is based on sound appreciation of evidence and the same cannot be categorised as infirm or perverse from any stretch of imagination in view of the fact that in connection with the dispute of raising projection on the lane in question, earlier a dispute arose between the parties relating to illegal construction by defendant No.1 and the plaintiff was given beatings as such a criminal case was instituted by plaintiff in which defendant accepted his guilt and got the case decided, which is evident from his own admission in his cross examination before the Court though he has taken a stand that he has not acted against the terms of the compromise arrived at. He has also admitted that the way to the house of the plaintiff now comes beneath the projection. The other witness of the defendants, viz., Narain Lal, also in his cross examination has accepted that the projection falls in the way of the plaintiff. In such a situation when part of the only four feet approach lane is being covered by defendants by projection and closing it to sky that too against the compromise arrived at earlier, in totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, as spelt out by various documents and the oral evidence adduced by the parties, lead to the irresistible conclusion that the respondent-plaintiff established his case that the appellants-defendants have raised illegal construction in the approach lane to his house. 12. There remains no quarrel that jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is to be exercised with great care and circumspection and normally this Court is not obliged to re-appreciate the evidence available on record for arriving at a different conclusion. 12. There remains no quarrel that jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is to be exercised with great care and circumspection and normally this Court is not obliged to re-appreciate the evidence available on record for arriving at a different conclusion. In the event of categorical finding of fact, the only ground available to an aggrieved party is to make out a case that there is substantial question of law involved in the matter. Substantial question of law is a question, which is real and substantial or involving public interest. 13. On delving deep into the matter, I am unable to lay my hand on any such question involved in this appeal. The so-called substantial questions of law sought to be canvassed by the appellants are merely hypothetical and at the most can be said to be academic only for which it is not in fitness of things to exercise second appellate jurisdiction. In view of above, I am not persuaded to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by learned lower appellate Court, which is a concurrent judgment. 14. In view of the aforesaid reasons and taking an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court holds that the Courts below have rightly rendered the impugned judgments for doing substantial justice. As the concurrent findings of the Courts below are based on sound appreciation of evidence, the same do not require any interference by this Court in second appeal sans substantial questions of law. 15. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.