JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs in a suit for permanent injunction against the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nathdwara in Civil Appeal No.05/2008 "Smt. Chandrakanta v. Chhagan Lal & Ors." by which, the appeal of the defendant No.2 was allowed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nathdwara, District Rajsamand Civil Original Suit No.67/2005 "Chhagan Lal & Ors. v. Smt. Rukmani Bai & Anr." by which, the suit of the plaintiffs-Chhagan Lal & Ors. seeking permanent injunction was decreed. 2. After framing of the relevant issues arising out of the plaint and written statement and after recording of the evidence, the learned Trial Court had allowed the suit of the plaintiffs-Chhagan Lal & Ors. v. Smt. Rukmani Bai & Anr." by which, the suit of the plaintiffs-Chhagan Lal & Ors. seeking permanent injunction was decreed. 2. After framing of the relevant issues arising out of the plaint and written statement and after recording of the evidence, the learned Trial Court had allowed the suit of the plaintiffs-Chhagan Lal & Ors. on 19.01.2008 with the following findings:- " 10- rudh la[;k 3% bl rudh dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izfroknhx.k ij gSA izfroknh Mh0M0&2 fnus'k jkBh us eq[; ijh{kk esa 'kiFk&i= esa tokc ds rF;ksa dks nksgjk dj iqf"V dh gS] ysfdu ftjg esa dgk gS fd esjh eka us ykyjke ls edku [kjhnkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd eSaus o esjh eEeh us u;k fuekZ.k djok;k gSA nf{k.k fn'kk esa u;k fuekZ.k xzkm.M Q~yksj] izFke o f}rh; eafty cuk;h gSA nf{k.k fn'kk esa fuekZ.k dh btktr ugha yhA btktr iwoZ dh yh FkhA olh;r fd;k] rc iqjkuk gh FkkA u;k cukus dh btktr geus gh yh FkhA ;g ckr lgh gS fd eSaus uo&fuekZ.k djk;k] mlds igys ls gh xks[kM+s cus gq, FksA esjs edku o Nxuth ds edku ds chp 4 QhV 6 bap dh nwjh u gksdj de T;knk gSaA Mh0M0&3&jkefd'ku us ftjg esa dgk gS fd Nxuyky th dk edku iqjkuk cuk gqvk gS] tks ykykjke th dk FkkA eSaus :de.kh ckbZ }kjk cuk;k x;k u;k edku gSA bl izdkj bl rudh dks lkfcr djus ds fy;s izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls tks lk{; i=koyh vk;h gS] mlls ;g rks izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izfroknh us iqjkus edku dks fxjk dj u;k edku cuk;k Fkk ysfdu tSlk fd Lo;a fnus'k jkBh o mlds xokgku dh lk{; o nLrkost ls ;g rF; lkfcr gqvk gS izfroknh us vius iwoZ iqjkus edku dks fxjkdj uo&fuekZ.k dk;Z djok;k gS] ysfdu uxjikfydk }kjk nh x;h vuqefr ds vuqlkj fuekZ.k ugha fd;k vkSj oknhx.k ds edku ds mRrj fn'kk esa fLFkr xyh 4 QhV 6 bap esa jksa'k] NTts o vU; gd&gdwd j[kdj xyh dks ladM+h dj nh gS] ftldk mls dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha FkkA bl izdkj ;g rudh la[;k 3 vkaf'kd :i ls izfroknhx.k ds i{k esa o vkaf'kd :i ls mlds fo:) fu.khZr dh tkrh gSA vkns'k 14- oknhx.k Nxuyky o vU; dk okn fo:) izfroknhx.k Jherh :de.kh ckbZ o vU; ckcr~ vkns'kkRed vkKk o LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk Lohdkj dj izfroknhx.k ds fo:) vkns'kkRed vkKk dh fMdzh ikfjr dh tkrh gS fd oknh ds edku ds mRrj fn'kk esa o izfroknhx.k ds edku ds nf{k.k fn'kk esa fLFkr 4 QhV 6 bap pkSM+h xyh esa pkSM+kbZ Ms<+ QhV esa izfroknhx.k us iwoZ ls if'pe jksa'k fudky fn;k gS] mls vius Lo;a ds O;; fu.kZ; dh frfFk ls nks ekg esa gVkdj xyh dks [kqyk djsa rFkk izfroknhx.k muds edku ds nf{k.k fn'kk esa nwljh o rhljh eafty ij fuekZ.k dj xyh esa fudklw jksa'k] NTtk] ckjh] tkyh ugha j[ksa] u fdlh vU; ls j[kkosaA [kpZ i{kdkjku viuk&viuk HkqxrsaxsA fMdzh ipkZ mDrkuqlkj eqfrZc gksA Sd/- ( iwj.k dqekj 'kekZ ) flfoy tt ( ofj"B [k.M ) ukFk}kjk] ftyk&jktleUn " 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2008, the defendant No.2-Smt. Chandrakanta filed the first appeal before the first appellate court of learned Additional District Judge, Nathdwara namely, Civil Appeal (Decree) No.05/2008 "Smt. Chandrakanta v. Chhagan Lal & Ors." which came to be allowed on 03.09.2013 and the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.01.2008 of the learned Trial Court was set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs-Chhangan Lal & Ors. was rejected in the following manner:- 15- nksuksa i{kksa ds rdZ o i=koyh ij tks lk{; vk;h gS mlls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd ekSds ij fuekZ.k dk;Z iw.kZ gks pqdk FkkA mlds i'pkr~ izR;FkhZ }kjk ;g okn izLrqr fd;k x;kA dfe'uj fjiksVZ ftl ij v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us ?kksj djrs gq, fu"d"kZ fudkys gSa mlds voyksdu ls Li"V gksrk gS fd uhps xyh 4-6 QhV gS rFkk mij dh vksj nksuksa gh txgksa ds xks[kM+s] f[kM+fd;ka vkfn fudkys gq, gSA vHkh Hkh Ms<+ QhV txg nksuksa gh i{kksa ds edkuksa ds chp esa 'ks"k gS ysfdu vihykFkhZ dk tks vfrdze.k gksuk crk;k x;k gS o Ms<+ QhV dk gS ;kfu fd izR;FkhZ oknh }kjk gh vius edku dh lhekvksa dks yka?krs gq, Ms<+ QhV vfrdze.k fd;k x;k gSA gekjh fouez jk; esa lkE; ds fl)kUr dks ns[krs gq, izR;FkhZ vkKkid fu"ks/kkKk dk vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha jg tkrk gSA blds vykok Hkh mijksDr rufd;ksa ds fu"d"kZ ls Hkh ;g Li"V gS fd izR;FkhZ ds edku dh gok jks'kuh vihykFkhZ }kjk fd;s x;s fuekZ.k ls ckf/kr ugha gksrh gS rFkk ftl txg fuekZ.k fd;k x;k ogka tehuh Lrj ij txg ftruh gS] mruh gh gS rFkk ;g rks [kqyh txg gS bldk LokfeRo izn'kZ 2 o izn'kZ 9&, ds vuqlkj vihykFkhZ dk gh izrhr gksrk gSA ,sls esa tc izR;FkhZ dh gok jks'kuh ckf/kr ugha gks jgh gS vkSj Lo;a muds }kjk Hkh Ms<+ QhV dk vfrdze.k fd;k x;k gS rks vihykFkhZ us uxjikfydk dh vuqefr izkIr dj gh fuekZ.k fd;k gSA ,sls esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk tks vkKkid fu"ks/kkKk dh fMdzh izR;FkhZ ds i{k esa ikfjr dh gS og U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrh gSA 16- mijksDr dkj.kksa dks ns[krs gq, v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk izR;FkhZ ds i{k esa ikfjr fMdzh vikLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS vkSj ifj.kkeLo:i ;g vihy Lohdkj ;ksX; gSA vkns'k 17- vihykFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk ;ksX; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMdzh fnukad 19-1-2008 vikLr fd;k tkdj oknh dk okn vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA fMdzh ipkZ ewfrZc gksA [kpkZ vihy i{kdkjku viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA Sd/- eqds'k HkkxZo vij ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k ukFk}kjk] ftyk&jktleUn jktLFkku 4. Having heard the learned counsel, Mr. Deelip Kawadia, appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants-Chhagan Lal & Ors. Having heard the learned counsel, Mr. Deelip Kawadia, appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants-Chhagan Lal & Ors. and upon perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees of the both Courts below and the site photographs produced by the learned counsel, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in the present second appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs-Chhagan Lal S/o Chaturbhuj & Ors. In the circumstances of the case, the findings of facts arrived by the learned First Appellate Court about the plaintiffs themselves having encroached upon 1.5 feet land in the lane in question and no disturbance in the air-light of the plaintiffs by the construction raised by the defendant having been caused and, therefore, these findings of facts cannot be said to be perverse in any manner and the said judgment does not give rise to any substantial question of law in this second appeal and this second appeal of the appellants-plaintiffs-Chhagan Lal & Ors. deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. The findings of facts arrived by the learned appellate Court below are correct and based on relevant and cogent evidence led by the parties before the Courts below. This Court finds no force in the present second appeal of the appellants-plaintiffs-Chhagan Lal S/o Chaturbhuj & Ors. and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the present second appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs-Chhagan Lal S/o Chaturbhuj & Ors. stands dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the Courts below and to the parties concerned forthwith.Appeal dismissed. *******