JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants/plaintiffs, Babarmal and others, have preferred the present second appeal against the defendants, legal representatives of late Sh. Mithulal, aggrieved by the reversal of findings by the first appellate court of Additional District Judge, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, and rejection of suit allowing the defendant's appeal being Appeal No.25/09 vide judgment and decree dated 06.10.2012. The learned trial court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Mandfiya, had decreed the appellants/plaintiffs' suit, namely, Civil Original Suit No.2/2008- Babarmal & Ors. v. LR's of Mithu Lal & Anr. vide judgment and decree dated 13.10.2009 in the following manner:-" vkns'k Qyr% oknhx.k dk okn fo:) izfroknhx.k fuEu izdkj ls fMdzh fd;k tkrk gS%& 1- oknhx.k ds i{k esa os izfroknhx.k ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkrh gS fd izfroknhx.k] oknhx.k ds oknxzLr rfy;s ij xzke iapk;r HkknlksM+k }kjk lkoZtfud mi;ksx gsrq dke esa yh xbZ Hkwfe dks NksM+dj oknxzLr rfy;k ds 'ks"k Hkkx ij oknhx.k }kjk mi;ksx] miHkksx esa fdlh izdkj dh :dkoV ugha MkysA 2- izfroknh ckcqyky o izfroknh feBkyky ds dk;e eqdkeku dks ikcUn fd;k tkrk gS fd muds uksgjs dh nf{k.kh nhokj esa tks njoktk oknxzLr rfy;k dh vksj j[kk gqvk gS] mls rRdky cUn dj blds nksuksa fljksa ij cukbZ xbZ pcwrfj;ksa dks vius [kpsZ ls vkns'k dh frfFk ls nks ekg dh vof/k esa gVk ysaosA nks ekg dh vof/k esa ugha gVkus ij oknhx.k dks izfroknhx.k ds uksgjs dh nf{k.kh nhokj okys njokts dks cUn djus o pcwrfj;ksa dks gVkus dk vf/kdkj jgsxk rFkk bldk [kpkZ izfroknhx.k vnk djsaxsA 3- oknhx.k izfroknh ckcwyky o izfroknh feBkyky ds dk;e eqdkeku ls oknxzLr LFkku pcwrfj;ksa okyh tehu dk dCtk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA 4- [kpkZ eqdnek mHk; i{kdkjku viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA fMdzh ipkZ rn~uqlkj rS;kj fd;k tk;A ,l0Mh0@& flfoy U;k;k/kh'k d0[k0 e.MfQ;k ftyk&fprkSM+x<+ fu.kZ; vkt fnukad 13-10-2009 dks fy[kk;k tkdj [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA ,l0Mh0@& flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ( d0[k0 ) e.MfQ;k ftyk&fprkSM+x< " 2. The first appellate court below while reversing the said findings found in para 18 that between the two plots of land claimed by the plaintiffs, there was a public way on which the Gram Panchayat, Bhadsoda, had constructed a road and the defendants' house is situated across that road on the opposite side and since the plaintiffs did not claim any compensation or his rights over the said land against the Gram Panchayat, therefore, they cannot claim mandatory injunction against the defendants for closing his door opened on that road and also remove the "Chabutari" made outside his house. The relevant Para 18 and operative portion vide Para 22 are also quoted herein below:- " 18- gLrxr izdj.k esa mHk; i{k dh mijksDr lk{; ls rFkk Loa; oknh i{k ds lk{khx.k ds dFkuksa ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd fookfnr Hkw[k.M okys LFkku ij xzke iapk;r ds }kjk iDdh lM+d cukbZ xbZ gSA ;g Hkh Li"V gksrk gS fd izfroknhx.k vihykFkhZx.k us xzke iapk;r HkknlkSM+k dh fuekZ.k Lohd`fr izn'kZ ,&1 ysdj b/kj njoktk fudkyk gSA ;g Hkh Li"V gksrk gS fd izfroknh feBqyky ds edku ds ckn ukfy;ka cuh gqbZ gS rFkk mlds ckn iDdh lM+d gSA ;g fufoZokfnr gS fd iDdh lM+d ds nf{k.k dh rjQ oknh ckcjey dk iDdk edku cuk gqvk gSA ;|fi oknh i{k ds }kjk tks c;ukek izn'kZ&2 iznf'kZr djk;k x;k gS] mlesa nks xokfM+;ka [kjhnus dk gokyk gSA mlh le; ,d xokM+h esa Lohd`r :i ls oknh dk edku cuk gqvk gS rFkk nwljh xokM+h fookfnr LFky gS] fdUrq xzke iapk;r HkknlkSM+k us eksgYys okyksa dh f'kdk;r ij fnukad 12-02-79 dks ekSdk ns[kdj izn'kZ ,&3 fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gS] ftlds vuqlkj ;g ik;k gS fd jkLrs dh tehu dks izn'kZ&2 ds fodzsrk us fodz; i= esa 'kkfey dj fn;k rFkk xzke iapk;r ds }kjk oknh ds iM+s gq, iRFkj dks mlh le; gVk fn;k x;k rFkk iDdh lM+d cuk nh xbZA ;g Hkh Li"V gksrk gS fd fookfnr Hkw[k.M okys LFkku ls fiNys ipkl o"kksZa ls yksxksa dk vkokxeu pyk vk jgk gSA orZeku esa nkos ds le; Hkh iDdh lM+d cuh gqbZ FkhA izfroknhx.k dk njoktk xzke iapk;r ls fuekZ.k Lohd`fr ls fudkyk gqvk Fkk] ukyh cuh gqbZ FkhA ,slh fLFkfr esa i=koyh ij mijksDr mHk; i{k dh ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ls ;g lkfcr ugha gks ikrk gS fd nkos ds le; fookfnr Hkw[k.M ij oknhx.k dk dCtk gksA fo)ku vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; ds }kjk c;ukek izn'kZ&2 dks egRo nsrs gq, ;g eku fy;k x;k fd fookfnr Hkw[k.M oknhx.k dk gS rFkk blh dkj.k njoktk cUn djuk rFkk pcwrfj;ka gVkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k gS] tks i=koyh ij mijksDr leLr lk{; ls mfpr ugha gSA bl izdkj gLrxr izdj.k esa ;g r; fd;k tkrk gS fd fookfnr Hkw[k.M ftl ij xzke iapk;r us iDdh lM+d cuk j[kh gS og oknhx.k ds dCtk dk ugha gS] cfYd lkoZtfud jkLrs dh Hkwfe gS] ftl ij izfroknhx.k us xzke iapk;r HkknlkSM+k ls vuqefr ysdj njoktk fudkyk gSA 22- Qyr% izfroknhx.k vihykFkhZx.k ds }kjk oknhx.k izR;FkhZx.k ds fo:) izLrqr flfoy vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ( dfy"B [k.M ) e.MfQ;k ds }kjk flfoy fu;fer nkok la[;k 02@2008 cmuoku ckcjey oxSjk cuke feBqyky oxSjk esa ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMdzh fnukad 13-10-2009 dks vikLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk oknhx.k izR;FkhZx.k ds }kjk izfroknhx.k vihykFkhZx.k ds fo:) fnukad 22-11-1980 dks izLrqr fd;k x;k nkok [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA mHk; i{kdkjku viuk viuk [kpkZ eqdnek ogu djsaxsA vihyh; ipkZ fMdzh cuk;k tkosA fu.kZ; dh izfr ds lkFk i=koyh fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks ykSVkbZ tkosA ,l0Mh0@& vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k fuEckgsM+k] jktLFkku fu.kZ; vkt fnukad 06-10-2012 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;kA 3. Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs vehemently argued that the Patta issued in favour of plaintiffs in the year 1940 clearly showed two portions of the plots given to the plaintiffs and, therefore, defendant's house which was adjacent to the plot of plaintiffs, could not encroach upon the land of plaintiffs and open door on that side. He, therefore, submitted that the first appellate court has erred in assuming that second plot of land was not belonging to the plaintiffs and defendants had a right to open door on the said side of the plot of land assuming to be a public road. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, during the course of arguments, has produced a certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Bhadsoda, Chittorgarh, dated 16.09.2012 along-with the photograph of the site in question, which prima facie even indicates that a road which is opposite the defendants' house is quite wide much more than six and half feet, as claimed in the map (blue print) produced for perusal by Mr. S.L. Jain. The certificate produced along-with photograph is taken on record. A close and bare perusal of the said map also reveal that the land is situated just opposite the defendants' house, mentions a stipulation that tehu ckcjeyth dh Fkh .This map purportedly made in the year 1940 is attached with Patta issued in favour of plaintiff clearly shows that land in the erstwhile period belonged to the plaintiffs and no Patta was issued for that portion of the land. The fact that the plaintiffs also did not claim any compensation from the Gram Panchayat for constructing the road over his own plot of land, also prima facie shows that the plaintiffs never claimed any ownership or right over the said disputed portion of land and the defendant's house is situated just across the road, on the opposite side. Therefore, the appellate court below appears to be justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial trial court and has rightly refused to grant injunction as prayed by the plaintiffs and dismissing the suit. 5. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs requiring consideration by this Court under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 6. 5. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs requiring consideration by this Court under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 6. Consequently, the present second appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs is found to be devoid of any merit, and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned parties and the courts below forthwith.Appeal Dismissed. *******