JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. In this appeal, filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, appellant has assailed concurrent findings of fact returned by the Courts below. 2. Appeal stands admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. In the absence of any pleaded right by defendant for obstructing disputed path by raising Khurli and extending Chhappar as shown in plan Ex. PW-2/A, whether the plaintiff is not entitled to mandatory injunction for removal of such obstruction on his path merely on the ground that the obstruction has not been proved to be of recent origin. 2. Whether the learned District Judge has misconstrued, misinterpreted and misapplied the oral and documentary evidence, pleadings and the view taken by him is not possible on the basis of material on record" 3. Plaintiff Prem Singh (appellant herein) filed a suit alleging that the defendant (respondent herein) had raised construction of a Chhappar, thus blocking the ingress or egress to his house situate on Khasra Nos. 124 and 126, Village Kotri, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur. 4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the mandatory injunction as prayed? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action as alleged? OPD. 4. Relief. 5. While answering the issues against the plaintiff, trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 22.01.2004, in Civil Suit No. 113/1 of 2002, titled as Shri Prem Singh v. Shri Chuhra Ram. 6. Lower Appellate Court has affirmed such findings of fact vide judgment dated 01.11.2004, in Civil Appeal No. 12- CA/13 of 2004, titled as Shri Prem Singh v. Shri Chuhra Ram. 7. Noticeably plaintiff is basing his claim purely on the basis of a site plan (Ex.PW.2/A). He has not been able to show continuous usage of the alleged path, over the land where the Chhappar in question, is stated to have been constructed by the defendant. It is not that the plaintiff has got no access to his property. This access to his house, is through the path which is slightly longer. 8. He has not been able to show continuous usage of the alleged path, over the land where the Chhappar in question, is stated to have been constructed by the defendant. It is not that the plaintiff has got no access to his property. This access to his house, is through the path which is slightly longer. 8. In the proceedings in question plaintiff was required to establish: (a) his easementary rights over the alleged path; (b) that path was in use over a continuous period of time; (c) the path was being used as a common path by the villagers; and (d) what right plaintiff has got over the land in question. Now all these questions remain unanswered or proven by him. The evidence on record ocular or otherwise, does not establish plaintiff's easmentary rights. Raghubir Singh (PW.2), who prepared the site plan (Ex.PW.2/A) also could not state as to when the Chhappar was constructed. 9. To the contrary, plaintiff's witnesses admit the Chhappar to be an old one, corroborating ocular version of Chhittru Ram (DW.2), a 74 years old man from the same village, according to whom, Chhappar is an old one and was in existence much prior to the filing of the suit in question. 10. Consequently, there is no reason or ground sufficient enough to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. It cannot be said that the Courts below erred in correctly and completely appreciating the testimonies of the witnesses or that findings returned are illegal, erroneous or perverse in any manner which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 11. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed of.