JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Original Suit No. 214 of 2002 (Jitendra Pal and anothers Vs. Dharam Pal and another) was decreed by judgment dated 07.08.2006 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) Gadh Mukteshwar, Ghaziabad, against which Civil Appeal no. 100 of 2006 (Dharam Pal and another Vs. Jitendra Pal and others) was preferred. The said appeal was dismissed by the judgment dated 28.08.2015 of District Judge, Hapur. Against these judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court, this second appeal has been preferred by the defendants of the original suit. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. In the original suit filed by the plaintiffs for prohibitory and mandatory injunction, plaintiffs have alleged that they have right of easement for user of light and air from the windows situated in western portion of their house and also have easementary right to drain out water of their house towards west of the house. They pleaded that towards west of their house, there is open land over which the defendant had constructed his house. But before construction of defendants' house, plaintiffs have acquired easementary right of user of light, air and draining out of water towards western side of their house. When defendants threatened to close windows and egress of water of house of plaintiffs, then they have filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. During pendency of suit when defendants closed the windows to plaintiffs' house then they had amended plaint and sought relief of demolition of construction obstructing the easementary right of plaintiffs. 4. The defendants had filed written statement refuting the averments of plaint and stated that there existed no window or drain of water from the western wall of plaintiffs' house; and the place described as open lands towards west of the house is the place where defendants' house had already been constructed from many years. The plaintiffs have no right to get any relief and their suit should be dismissed. 5. The trial court had framed issues, accepted evidences of parties and thereafter passed the judgment dated 11.08.2006 by which plaintiffs' suit was decreed and defendants (present appellants) were directed to remove the constructions obstructing the windows and drain of western portion of plaintiffs' house, and also not to raise any construction there in future. Against this judgment, of trial court, defendants had preferred civil appeal no. Against this judgment, of trial court, defendants had preferred civil appeal no. 100/ 2006 which was heard and dismissed on merit by District Judge, Hapur. Aggrieved by these judgments of the two lower courts, present second appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that in plaint open land house and alleged windows and drains has been shown towards west of the house of plaintiffs. But plaintiff's side had admitted that there is house of defendants for about 20 years which proves that suit of plaintiffs has been instituted on incorrect facts, therefore appeal should have been dismissed, but it was erroneously decreed. He also contended that the first appellate court had also not considered these important facts and even the fact that for about 20 years plaintiffs have no easementary right over disputed property. Therefore, appeal should have been allowed. He contended that the finding of the fact given by the two lower courts is altogether incorrect which should be quashed. Therefore appeal should be admitted for being allowed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that from the evidences, it is proved that house of the plaintiffs-respondents situated there for about 50 years, and towards west of that house there was open land. Defendants had left the portion of open land towards west of plaintiffs house and raised his house leaving open the land, and plaintiffs had been enjoying easementary right of light, air and drainage towards west of their house through that open land. He contended that defendants-appellants had left substantial portion of land towards west of plaintiffs' house and thereafter constructed their house which was there for about 20 years. In these circumstances there had been continuous uninterrupted enjoyment of light, air and drainage for plaintiffs from western side. He also contended that when defendants threatened to close the plaintiffs' windows and right of easement then original suit was filed; and when they closed those windows by unauthorized construction, then relief of demolition of said construction was sought by amendment in plaint. He contended that both the courts below had appreciated these facts and rightly passed the judgments. In the light of concurrent finding of fact by the two courts below this second appeal is not maintainable and should be dismissed. 8. He contended that both the courts below had appreciated these facts and rightly passed the judgments. In the light of concurrent finding of fact by the two courts below this second appeal is not maintainable and should be dismissed. 8. On basis of admitted facts of the case and a perusal of the two judgments of the trial court and admitted fact, it is proved that towards west of the house of plaintiffs/respondents there had been open land and from that side plaintiffs had been enjoying easementary right of light, air and drainage of water. The plaintiffs' house is situated there for about 50 years. The defendants' house was constructed about 20 years back and there is open land between the eastern side of defendants-appellants' house and western wall of plaintiffs' house, in which windows and provision for drainage are fixed. The findings on these facts as well as finding of plaintiffs/ respondents' uninterrupted easementary right by prescription, as alleged in plaint, is confirmed by the trial court as well as first appellate court. It has been rightly held by the two courts that defendants had raised construction obstructing plaintiffs' easementary rights therefore it should be removed. All disputes between the parties of this appeal are factual and there is nothing for which any legal point may be discussed. 9. On examination of the reasoning recorded by the trial court, which are affirmed by the learned first appellate court in first appeal, I am of the view that the judgments of the trial court as well as the first appellate court are well reasoned, based upon proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law was involved in the case before the High Court. No perversity or infirmity is found in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court or by the first appellate court to warrant interference through this appeal. None of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs can be sustained. 10. In view of the above, this Court finds that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Therefore second appeal is dismissed.