ORDER : JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA, J. 1. The appeal is delayed by 851 days. Along with the appeal, application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay has also been filed. For the reasons stated in the application, this court is satisfied with the explanation offered and, therefore, the delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned. 2. Heard finally. 3. Instant second appeal is directed against judgment and decree dt 6.9.2010 passed by Addl. District Judge No.5, Kota, whereby the judgment and decree dt 6.5.2002 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kota North, in Civil Suit No.148/1996, has been upheld. 4. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction while contending that his house is situated at Lalaghat Koli Pada, Ladpura, Kota, having 23.5 feet x 4.5 feet government lane towards western side and across the lane the house of appellant defendant is situated. The plaintiff's house is getting light, air from the side where government lane is situated on western side of his house, and windows and doors of the house are also opening towards the said lane and he is living in the said house for last 40 years and the flow of drains of bathroom, kitchen, and rain waters is also towards the said lane. It was alleged that about 3-4 months ago, the defendant, taking advantage of absence of the plaintiff, demolished the western side balcony (CHAJJA) of size 11feet x 2feet on ground floor of the plaintiff's house and also closed the window of size 2.5feet x 3feet, opening towards western side, and by encroaching upon the lane, raised illegal construction and closed/obstructed the lane, due to which passage of entrance/exit to and from plaintiff's house was adversely affected and due to closure of the window of the ground floor room of the plaintiff's house, the room was deprived of light and the inside was dark. After repeated requests being made by the plaintiff to the defendant to remove the un-authorised construction, when the defendant did not take any step, the plaintiff filed the present suit with the aforesaid prayer. 5. After service, the defendant filed written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. After repeated requests being made by the plaintiff to the defendant to remove the un-authorised construction, when the defendant did not take any step, the plaintiff filed the present suit with the aforesaid prayer. 5. After service, the defendant filed written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. The defendant stated in his written statement that the parties are brothers, plaintiff is elder brother and wants to grab the entire property, and defendant has not demolished any CHAJJA nor closed the window nor raised any illegal construction and nor closed the way of plaintiff's house as averred in the plaint, and that the entire construction is in existence since the time of their father and the plaintiff has filed suit just to harass the defendant on wrong and incorrect facts and prayed for rejection of the suit. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as 5 issues, including the issue of relief. In support of the plaint the plaintiff examined PW1 Premswaroop, PW2 Smt. Teejubai, whereas the defendant examined DW1 Ramnarain, DW2 Kesrilal and DW3 Hariprakash. 7. After hearing arguments of both sides, the learned court below decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff vide its judgment and decree dated 6.5.2002, which was assailed by the defendant before the first appellate court, who after analysing the material on record and hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the court below vide its judgment and decree dated 6.9.2010. Hence this second appeal by the defendant. 8. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant contended that the appellate court has erred in upholding the finding of the trial court without assigning any cogent and sufficient reason. He further contends that both the courts below have ignored an important fact that the room of defendant was not on the ground floor as such question of closing of window of the plaintiffs room does not arise. He further contended that both the courts below have erred in deciding issue nos.1 and 2 by holding that the lane was 40 years old. He further contended that both the courts below have erred in deciding issue nos.1 and 2 by holding that the lane was 40 years old. Learned counsel has also contended that substantial questions of law does arise out of the impugned judgment and decree, which needs consideration, and prayed for quashing of the impugned judgment and decrees passed by the courts below. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and decrees of both the courts below. In my view, the judgment and decrees passed by both the courts below are just and proper, and both the courts below having considered the material available on record, returned a concurrent finding of fact and there being no perversity being pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the judgment and decrees, in my view, no substantial questions of law arise in this second appeal. 10. Consequently, this second appeal being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.