JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present regular second appeal is maintained by the appellant/defendant (hereinafter called as “the defendant”) against the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter called as “the plaintiff”) assailing the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2005, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 50-G/XIII/2005, whereby the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 2, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 83/99/98, dated 30.03.2005, was set-aside by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., and the suit was decreed. 2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a Civil Suit in the Court of first instance seeking permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from changing the nature of the suit land, raising new construction thereon and encroaching upon the path (‘Deodi’), depicted by letters ABCD in the site plan. As per jamabandi for the year 1995-96, the suit land is situated in Khata No. 17, min, Khatauni No. 62 min, Khasra No. 90, measuring 0-11-16 hectares, in Mohal Kaseli, Mauza Ghallour, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. The plaintiff has simultaneously claimed mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove eave (‘chajja’), which is depicted in the site plan by letters AHIC and the iron stairs reared over the suit path. The plaintiff anchored his reliefs on the basis that the land is joint inter se the parties and over the suit land there exists their abadies (inhabitations). Since time immemorial the path (Deodi) is common and is in use by the parties for ingress and egress to their residences. However, the defendant, by encroaching upon the suit path, started construction and threatened to build his stair case thereon. The action of the defendant was likely to constrict the path (deodi) and during the pendency of the suit in the month of June, 1998, the defendant constructed eave (chajja) measuring 6 inches in width and 22 feet in length towards the suit path, which is demonstrated in the spot map by letters AHIC. Thereafter in third week of November, 2002, the defendant reared iron stairs over the suit path. Despite repeated requests, the defendants did not refrain from his unlawful acts and the plaintiff has no other alternative path to his residence. 3. Conversely, the defendants, by way of filing written statement to the amended plaint, controverted the pleadings made therein. Thereafter in third week of November, 2002, the defendant reared iron stairs over the suit path. Despite repeated requests, the defendants did not refrain from his unlawful acts and the plaintiff has no other alternative path to his residence. 3. Conversely, the defendants, by way of filing written statement to the amended plaint, controverted the pleadings made therein. The defendants raised preliminary objections qua cause of action, locus standi, estoppel, maintainability, valuation and description etc. On merits, the defendants averred that the parties to the suit have separate and independent houses and the share of the plaintiff comes to about three and one-fourth marlas in the suit land and the old house of the plaintiff is also on the suit land, which is on about two and half marlas of land. It is also averred that plaintiff, about 4 to 5 years back, reconstructed his new house where his old house existed by exceeding his share, the plaintiff covered 10 marlas of land. In the event of partition, the plaintiff has to cede his possession to the defendant and other co-sharers which is in excess. It is further averred that defendant did not raise any construction by encroaching upon the disputed common path and the construction was raised by his brother, Shri Vipin Kumar. The double storeyed old house with veranda was constructed by the father of the defendant, which collapsed 2 to 3 years back. The brother of the defendant raised construction over a part of the collapsed house and the foundations of the old house are still visible on the spot The new construction was not reared on the disputed path and the same is still in existence and the path has not been constricted at all. It is also denied that iron stairs were constructed over that path. It is also denied that plaintiff has no other alternative path and, in fact, plaintiff has access from all sides, which are in use by the parties and their family members. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether there is common passage to the residential house of the parties over the suit land? OPP 3. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether there is common passage to the residential house of the parties over the suit land? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction? OPP 3-A. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to remove iron stair erected on the path, shown in the site plan, dated 27.11.2002, as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to sue? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 7. Relief.” 5. The learned Trial Court below decided Issues No. 1 to 3-A, 5 and 6 against the plaintiff and issues No. 4 and 7 were decided in favour of the defendant and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Thereafter, appeal was maintained by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Dehra, Kangra, H.P. before the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala and the same was accepted. The learned District Judge, vide impugned judgment dated 27.10.2005, set aside the decision of the learned Trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. The present appeal was admitted for hearing on 05.05.2008, for determining the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has committed grave error of law and jurisdiction in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff respondent by relying upon inadmissible evidence especially Ex. P5, Ex. P6 and Ex. DX? 2. Whether Lower Appellate court has recorded erroneous and perverse findings by presuming the existence of common passage, when there was neither any pleadings or documentary evidence showing the ingress and egress of such common passage as well as the right on the basis of such claim was made in the plaint? Has not the Lower Appellate Court acted in excess for jurisdiction to grant the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of the plaintiff respondent, when the Trial Court came to the conclusion that there does not exist any common path? 3. Has not the Lower Appellate Court acted in excess for jurisdiction to grant the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of the plaintiff respondent, when the Trial Court came to the conclusion that there does not exist any common path? 3. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has committed grave illegality in granting mandatory injunction to the plaintiff respondent without precisely depicting the nature of encroachment and obstruction over the alleged common path, when the plaintiff did not place on record sufficient evidence showing the nature and extent of such action attributable to the defendant? Are not the findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court opposed to the various provisions of Specific Relief Act? 4. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has committed grave illegality in not assigning any reason for not agreeing with the findings of the Trial Court and recording such findings which are based on no evidence? Was not it imperative for the Lower Appellate Court to have referred to the findings of the Trial Court and the reasons for not agreeing with the same while reversing the judgment and decree by the Trial Court? 7. The learned senior counsel for the defendant has argued that the Court below has wrongly relied upon the documents on record, including the report of the Local Commissioner and the spot maps, when they were not proved in accordance with law. He has further argued that the facts on record go to show that the defendant has raised the construction initially on the old lines where the house of his father was constructed. He has further argued that the construction was not raised by the defendant, but it was raised by his brother. These aspects were not considered by the Court below. He has further argued that the plaintiff has raised the construction on the land exceeding his share and with ulterior motive he has maintained the suit, so that the defendant may not be able to use his land. He has further argued that the iron stair case was put at the place where earlier there was a bamboo stair case. He has argued that the appeal be allowed and the suit may be dismissed. 8. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the stair case and chajja were raised by the defendant by encroaching upon the path and deodi. He has argued that the appeal be allowed and the suit may be dismissed. 8. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the stair case and chajja were raised by the defendant by encroaching upon the path and deodi. This is apparent from the report of the Local Commissioner as well as the site maps. The learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has further argued that there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal and the appeal deserves dismissal. He has relied upon 2014(2) HLR 1209, Ranjeet Khanna vs. Chiragu Deen & another and has argued that the Local Commissioner’s report is a part of evidence and can be relied upon while discussing other evidence. The learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has further argued that in the first appeal, unless restricted by law, the Court below was bound to rehear the case and the learned First Appellate Court has committed no illegality in hearing the appeal in totality, on all aspects. 9. In rebuttal, the learned Senior Counsel has argued that though there involves substantial questions of law for determination in the present appeal and as the judgment of the Court below is vitiated for non-consideration of relevant evidence and is an erroneous approach to the matter, the findings are perverse, so the appeal is required to be allowed. To substantiate his arguments, he has relied upon 2010(13) SCC 216 , Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs. Punjab State Electricity Board. 10. To appreciate the arguments of the learned senior counsel for the parties, I have gone through the records in detail. 11. There is no dispute that the land comprised in Khasra No. 90 was abadi (inhabitation), which is owned by the parties to the suit and other co-sharers. PW-1 Shri Gopal Dass, at the instance of the plaintiff, has prepared the spot map, Ex. PW-1/A. PW-2 Shri Krishan prepared the spot map, Ex. PW-2/A, depicting the path in dispute by letters ABCD. PW-3 Shri V.S. Gill, Advocate, was appointed as Local Commission under the orders of the Court and he has inspected the spot and submitted his report Ex. PW- 3/A. As per his report, Ex. PW-3/A, there exists no deodi and there is a path, measuring 6 feet in width, leading to the abadies (inhabitations). However, the same was not blocked by the defendant in any manner. PW- 3/A. As per his report, Ex. PW-3/A, there exists no deodi and there is a path, measuring 6 feet in width, leading to the abadies (inhabitations). However, the same was not blocked by the defendant in any manner. This witness has also testified this fact as PW-3. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that path, measuring 6 feet in width, is there, which leads to the abadies (inhabitations) and the same is not blocked by the defendant. Therefore, it stands testified that there exists a path which is 6 feet in width and goes to the abadies (inhabitations) of the parties. Plaintiff, Shri Jagdish Ram, has himself stepped into the witness box as PW-4 and has testified the existence of common path on the spot and the same is being used since the time of their forefathers through deodi, but deodi is now not in existence. This witness has deposed that defendant after demolition of his old house started raising construction of his new house in the month of March, 1998, and in doing so he encroached upon the common path by erecting wall. He moved an application, Ex. P1 to the Panchayat, however, the same was returned to him for moving the same before the Court. PW-4 Jagdish Ram has further stated that Advocate V.S. Gill was appointed as Local Commissioner, who submitted his report after conducting the spot inspection. However, the defendant continued with the construction work. He has further stated that defendant constructed chajja over the common path. In his cross-examination he explicated that in between the cow-barn of Brahm Dutt and Ved Prakash there is common path (deodi) and then there is a room of the defendant. He has further explicated that there were slates (roof tiles) on the deodi and he has denied that the houses alongwith deodi were slate-posh. This witness has also denied that Shri Vipin raised the construction. The construction was being raised by the defendant after demolishing/razing the old house. 12. PW-5 Shri Roshan Lal has completely corroborated the statement of PW-4 Jagdish Ram (plaintiff). This witness has also stated that there exists a common path leading to the abadies (inhabitations) of the parties to the suit and other co-sharers. The construction was being raised by the defendant after demolishing/razing the old house. 12. PW-5 Shri Roshan Lal has completely corroborated the statement of PW-4 Jagdish Ram (plaintiff). This witness has also stated that there exists a common path leading to the abadies (inhabitations) of the parties to the suit and other co-sharers. He has specifically deposed that house of Brahman Dutt comes first and then the house of Ved Prakash and thereafter there is common path (deodi) and lastly comes the cow-barn of the defendant. The path (deodi) leads to the houses of plaintiff, Basant and Ved Prakash and same is the only path which is being used by them. PW-5 in his cross-examination has deposed that path in dispute is 6 to 7 feet in width and 9 feet in length and it has walls of the house of the defendant from both sides and it is common. He has denied the suggestion that there are other paths for the house of the plaintiff. He has deposed that the path (deodi) is in use since the time of their forefathers. PW-6, Shri Ram Lal, testified that the path leads to the houses of the parties through deodi and in marriages Toran (temporary gate) is embedded on the deodi. This witness has further deposed that he worked as carpenter in the house of the defendant. The path in dispute is being used by the plaintiff through deodi and no other path was in use. This witness, in his cross-examination, has stated that currently there is no deodi (gate/arch) as the same has been removed. He has denied that there was a single roof of the house and deodi and the roof of the deodi is at lower level. He has also denied that there is no other ingress to the house of the plaintiff, through the disputed common path. 13. After amending the plaint, plaintiff, Shri Jagdish Ram, reexamined himself as PW-7 and he has produced in evidence his affidavit, wherein he has testified that during the pendency of the suit, defendant tethered the iron stairs in the disputed path thereby creating obstruction in the use of common path and as the same was constricted. The defendant continued with his acts despite the ad interim injunction order of the Court. He has refuted that there is no path where iron stairs were placed. The defendant continued with his acts despite the ad interim injunction order of the Court. He has refuted that there is no path where iron stairs were placed. He has further deposed that compromise, Ex. PW-7/A, was entered at the instance of father of the defendant and as per the same, the parties have agreed to maintain the common path (deodi) in the same position, but with certain stipulations. He has denied that due to placing of iron stairs no obstruction is caused and one can pass freely without any difficulty. However, reply to the suggestion itself reveals that iron stairs were placed in the deodi. 14. PW-8, Shri Braham, who is one of the co-sharer in the abadi (inhabitation) alongwith other parties, through his evidence, testified his affidavit, Ex. PW-8/A. In his affidavit he has sworn that disputed path is common and in the month of November, 2002, the defendant placed iron stairs on it thereby obstructing the same. Local Commissioner also found this obstruction when he visited the spot. The plaintiff had also tendered in evidence copy of statement of defendant, Ex. DX, which reveals that initially he has denied the existence of placing of stair case on the disputed path, however, afterwards he deposed that stair case was not put by his brother, but by him. This statement fortifies that iron stair case has been placed on the deodi. Shri Vikram Sarmai, Advocate, through his statement, Ex. P5, deposed that he was appointed as Local Commissioner by the Court on 03.12.2002 and he visited the spot on the same day. In his cross-examination he has stated that on the day when he visited the spot, iron stair case was not affixed on the ground, however, the same was tethered over the path with the lintel of the house of the defendant. He has further stated that land under the stair case was vacant, but it was difficult to pass through that land. Ex P6, report of the Local Commissioner clearly depicts that during inspection, except iron stairs, no other obstruction was found on the disputed path, which leads to the joint abadies (inhabitations) and courtyard of the parties. Report also reveals that there exists a common path on the spot and stair case has been kept there on the path. 15. The defendant, in rebuttal, examined DW-1, Shri Hoshiar Singh, who testified his affidavit, Ex. Report also reveals that there exists a common path on the spot and stair case has been kept there on the path. 15. The defendant, in rebuttal, examined DW-1, Shri Hoshiar Singh, who testified his affidavit, Ex. DW-1/A, wherein he has stated that there is no deodi, however, the plaintiff has extended the construction of his house towards the courtyard and path and has also reared stairs. Path has been constricted due to the act of the plaintiff. In his cross-examination, this witness deposed that defendant did not construct the house and the same was constructed by Vipin. He has denied that the defendant has threatened to obstruct the path. Shri Bidhi Chand (DW-2) has also testified his affidavit, Ex. DW-2/A, wherein he has stated that he constructed the house of Vipin on the same land where the old house of the defendant was in existence. He has also testified that plaintiff has obstructed the path by raising construction. However, this witness could not clearly deny that the path, which leads to the house of the plaintiff, is in existence since the time of forefathers of the parties. DW-1, Shri Hoshiar Singh and DW-2, Shri Bidhi Chand, are residents of nearby village Balian and both these witnesses in their cross-examinations have stated that they are deposing at the instance of Shri Vipin. These witnesses could not depose that whether there is path through the deodi of the old house. They have denied that door is 6 feet and stated that it is 3 feet and there is no deodi, but a door. These witnesses have admitted that the plaintiff used to enter his house from the vacant land adjoining to the house of Braham Dutt. 16. Shri Thakur Dass (DW-3) has also testified his affidavit, Ex. DW-3/A and stated that he lives at a distance of 1½ or 2 kilometers. As per his version, there is no obstruction caused by the defendant in the path. In his cross-examination he has deposed that there is a door in the old house of the plaintiff, but he could not tell whether this door is being used by him or not. 17. Shri Ved Prakash (DW-4) has also testified his affidavit, Ex. DW-4/A and deposed that there was no deodi or path. In his cross-examination he has deposed that there is a door in the old house of the plaintiff, but he could not tell whether this door is being used by him or not. 17. Shri Ved Prakash (DW-4) has also testified his affidavit, Ex. DW-4/A and deposed that there was no deodi or path. He has also testified that the common path leads to the house of the plaintiff through Khasra No. 173 and claimed that Vipin has joint house. This witness, in his cross-examination, has stated that Sh. V.S. Gill, Local Commissioner, visited the spot and found that construction material of Vipin was lying there on the deodi, however, there was no projection of chajja during that time. Shri Sukhwant Singh (DW-6) has also testified his affidavit, Ex. DW-6/A, wherein he has deposed that at the instance of the defendant he has prepared the spot map depicting the iron stair case. In the spot map, Ex. DW-6/A, Shri Sukhwant Singh (DW-6) did not show disputed path, which is there in spot map, Ex. PW-1/A, and only a village path has been depicted in blue ink. The path has been shown from the other side. DW-6 has denied that a 6 feet path was in existence on the spot. He admits that in spot map, Ex. DW-6/A, at point marked as ‘D’, there is projection of chajja, however he could not tell that whether the said projection is of the house of the defendant. He has denied that path which leads to the house of the plaintiff goes through the place where the iron stair case has been tethered. Shri Satish Kumar, Pardhan (DW-7) has also testified his affidavit, wherein he has revealed that path, which leads to the house of the parties to the suit and other co-sharers, has been paved with Panchayat funds. In his cross-examination he has deposed that he resides at village which is at a distance of one kilometer and the path, which is paved, goes outside the abadies (inhabitations) of the parties to the suit. 18. As per the claim of the plaintiff, land depicted by letters ABCD is common path, which is also depicted in the spot maps Ex. P9, Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-2/A, and he sought removal of projected chajja, which is depicted by letters AHIC as well as the stair case. 18. As per the claim of the plaintiff, land depicted by letters ABCD is common path, which is also depicted in the spot maps Ex. P9, Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-2/A, and he sought removal of projected chajja, which is depicted by letters AHIC as well as the stair case. Taking into consideration the evidence of the parties, it is apparent that parties to the suit are co-sharers and joint owners of the land and they have separate possession on their houses. As per the defendant, he has not constructed any house, but on the old foundations of the house his younger brother, Vipin, has constructed a house. It also appears that, as per the defendant, passage is still in existence on the spot and the same is in use and has not been constricted. Precisely, the defendant is trying to make out a case that neither he has constructed any house nor extended chajja of his house or tethered stair case on the path in question, thereby obstructing the same. Conversely, the defendant testified that owing to the construction of the house by the plaintiff, the path in question has been constricted, however, said fact did not find mention in the written statement. The defendant also claimed that the path for general public passes through the land comprised in Khasra No. 173 and due to which the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the path through deodi, which is shown by letters ABCD. As per the learned senior counsel for the defendant, the plaintiff has failed to establish his right to use the path in question on the basis of easement of necessity or by way of prescription. On the other hand the plaintiff has to prove that he has acquired right of passage by way of necessity or by way of prescription, but in the present case the land comprised in Khasra No. 90, is joint land of the parties. It stands also established that path in dispute is in existence since time immemorial and since then the parties were using the same as common path, through deodi. Deodi is a common gate or entrance used by the residents of same abadi (inhabitation). 19. Ex. P6, i.e. report of the Local Commission, Shri V.S. Gill (PW-3) and statement, Ex. It stands also established that path in dispute is in existence since time immemorial and since then the parties were using the same as common path, through deodi. Deodi is a common gate or entrance used by the residents of same abadi (inhabitation). 19. Ex. P6, i.e. report of the Local Commission, Shri V.S. Gill (PW-3) and statement, Ex. P5, of Shri Vikram Sermai, Advocate, go to establish that there was no obstruction in the path in question when the suit was instituted and during the pendency of the same the defendant, and not his younger brother Vipin, extended the chajja of his house towards the path, which is depicted by letters AHC and also tethered iron stair case over the path thereby causing obstruction to the path. As it also stands established that the path in question is common path denoted by letters ABCD and it is being used by the parties since time immemorial, the parties have right to use the same in future as well, as such, the defendant by no stretch of imagination has right to create any obstruction in the path in question and constricting the same. 20. In 2014(2) HLR 1209, Ranjeet Khanna vs. Chiragu Deen & another, this Hon’ble Court has held as under: “30. While going through Order 26 Rule 10 CPC, one comes to inescapable conclusion that the Commissioner’s report is a part of evidence, is admissible and can be relied upon while discussing the other evidence, in the given circumstances of the case.” So, the report of the Local Commissioner is admissible and after taking into consideration the report of the Local Commissioner, this Court finds that as far as the house of the defendant is concerned, same has been raised on the old lines on which house of his father was existing, but as far as chajja is concerned, the same has been extended towards the main path. The stair case, which was put up by the defendant, on the common path, is definitely causing obstruction in using the common path by the co-sharers/co-owners. The rights of the co-sharers and co-owners have already been defined by this Court in Kewal Krishan and another vs. Amrit Lal, RSA No. 575 of 2010, which are enumerated as under:- “(a) A co-owner/co-sharer has an interest/right in the whole property, i.e., in every inch of it. The rights of the co-sharers and co-owners have already been defined by this Court in Kewal Krishan and another vs. Amrit Lal, RSA No. 575 of 2010, which are enumerated as under:- “(a) A co-owner/co-sharer has an interest/right in the whole property, i.e., in every inch of it. (b) Possession of joint property by one co-owner/co-sharer, is in the eye of law, possession of all even if all, except one are actually out of possession. (c) A mere occupation of a larger portion or even of an entire joint property by one co-sharer/co-owner does not amount to ouster of the other, as the possession of one is deemed to be on behalf of all. This is subject to an exception when there is complete and conclusive ouster of a co-owner/co-sharer by another, but in order to negative the presumption of joint possession on behalf of all, on the ground of such ouster, the possession of a co-owner/co-sharer must not only be exclusive but also hostile to the knowledge of the other, i.e., when a co-owner openly asserts his own title and denies that of the other. (d) Lapse of time does not extinguish the right of the co-owner/co-sharer, who has been out of possession of the joint property, except in the event of abandonment. (e) Every co-owner/co-sharer has a right to use the joint property in a husband like manner not inconsistent with similar rights of other co-owners/co-sharers. (f) Where a co-owner/co-sharer is in possession of separate parcels under an arrangement/consent by the other co-owners/co-sharer, it is not open to any co-sharer/co-owner to disturb the arrangement without the consent of others, except by way of partition. (g) Whenever there is severance of title and the parties have a long possession on the parcels of joint land, as far as possible, the partition is required to be made in a manner that party in occupation, as far as possible, be adjusted in that portion or part of that. (h) Co-sharers/co-owners are expected to respect the right of others even when they are in settled possession on specific portion of the land in a manner that the easementary rights of the others are not obstructed. (i) The co-sharers/co-owners are required to respect the sentiments of each other to maintain peace among themselves. (h) Co-sharers/co-owners are expected to respect the right of others even when they are in settled possession on specific portion of the land in a manner that the easementary rights of the others are not obstructed. (i) The co-sharers/co-owners are required to respect the sentiments of each other to maintain peace among themselves. This is not only a legal, but a moral duty as well, which is required to be followed by the co-sharers/ co-owners and should be recognized as a right while adjudicating the rights of the parties, as the ultimate goal of the administration of justice is to maintain peace in the society, especially among the co-sharers/co-owners. (j) The eldest co-sharer/co-owner is duty bound to come forward and settle the dispute inter se any two or more co-sharers/co-owners after mediating. This is not only his duty as a co-sharer/co-owner being elder, but also his moral duty to spare some time, experience, mental faculties and the respect he command to mediate disputes among the co-sharers/co-owners in order to achieve peace. The Courts can also make use of such process by taking help from the elder co-sharer/co-owner by asking him to mediate the matter, so that the peace is achieved among the co-shares/co-owners and ultimately in the society.” 21. The case of the defendant is that the stair case was tethered on the place where old bamboo stair case was in existence, however, the same is without any basis as he has failed to substantiate it by leading any evidence on record. At the same point of time, it is clear that the deodi and common path was being used since time immemorial, though the deodi was not in existence as the same stood demolished, but it is clear that the same was being used by all the land owners and the defendant has no right to obstruct the use of the deodi and the path being used by the plaintiff and other co-owners. 22. In Basohli (deceased) vs. Bhagtu Ram & others, Latest HLJ 2015 (HP) 1037, this Hon’ble Court has held that the First Appellate Court can decide the appeal on all the points. 22. In Basohli (deceased) vs. Bhagtu Ram & others, Latest HLJ 2015 (HP) 1037, this Hon’ble Court has held that the First Appellate Court can decide the appeal on all the points. I have considered the arguments of the parties on all the aspects and also gone through the record of the case on each aspect, but no error is found in the findings arrived at by the Court below so the judgment cited by the learned senior counsel for the appellant is considered, but as there is no irregularity, illegality in the judgment of the learned Court below, the findings of the Court below are held to be as per law after appreciating the facts to its true perspective. As such substantial question of law No. 1 is answered accordingly. 23. I have considered the law cited by the learned senior counsel for the appellant in 2010(13) SCC 216 , Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, it is clear that the Hon’ble High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC can definitely go into the question whether the findings arrived at by the First Appellate Court and Trial Court are the result of erroneous approach and in case the findings are perverse, the appeal is maintainable, but in the present case the Court below has considered all the material aspects of the case, documentary as well as oral evidence led by the parties and the pleadings of the parties are appreciated in their right perspective and the law has been applied correctly. So, the law cited by the learned senior counsel for the appellant (defendant) is not helpful to the appellant in this case and the substantial question No. 2 is answered holding that the findings recorded by the Court below are just, reasoned and after appreciating the evidence and pleadings in their true perspective. 24. As far as the grant of mandatory injunction is concerned, since the appellant has raised the obstruction on the joint land and has obstructed the right of the plaintiff, so the relief, as granted by the Court below to the plaintiff, is as per law and so substantial question No. 3 is answered accordingly. 25. 24. As far as the grant of mandatory injunction is concerned, since the appellant has raised the obstruction on the joint land and has obstructed the right of the plaintiff, so the relief, as granted by the Court below to the plaintiff, is as per law and so substantial question No. 3 is answered accordingly. 25. The Lower Appellate Court has given findings considering whole of the evidence and by a detailed and reasoned order had decreed the suit of the plaintiff, as the findings of the Court below are reasoned one and the findings, as arrived at by the Trial Court, are set aside giving full reasons and after appreciating the facts and evidence in their true perspective, it is held that the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion with respect to the facts and law and the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court requires no interference. Substantial question No. 4 is answered accordingly. 26. In a nutshell, as a result of the above discussion, the appeal is devoid of merits, hence dismissed. 27. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs throughout.