ORDER : Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. 1. Respondent/plaintiff Babulal, filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against his brother appellant/defendant Nemichand, before the learned trial court in respect of the property in dispute with the averments, inter-alia, that their maternal grandmother, namely Anandi, sold the portion of her property mentioned in para 2 of the plaint to the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 Phool Chand through registered sale deed. Plaintiff was in possession of the shop situated at the western corner of the property and the small room constructed over the kothri, which came under the possession of plaintiff and defendant no. 2, whereas the upper floor of four shops situated on the eastern side of the property, was free from any construction. Rest of the land which was shown in violet colour in the map annexed along with the plaint, was in possession of said Anandi, who died in the year 1943. It is stated that at that time defendant no. 1, Nemichand was aged 9 years and since then he is in possession of the property. Plaintiff is in possession of the portion marked in black colour in the annexed map since 1942 and defendant no. 2 Phool Chand is in possession of the portion of the said map coloured in yellow. Chowk, stairs and the door, were being used jointly by the plaintiff and defendant no. 2. It is also averred in the plaint that in the chowk, which is of joint use, defendant no. 1 raised a platform of 5 feet x 15 feet, on account of which the plaintiff is facing lot of problems. The property was divided/partitioned mutually. The window and door of the portion which came under the possession of plaintiff and defendant no. 2, were opening towards the eastern side since beginning and in the year 1971-72, defendant no. 1 Nemichand closed the same by way of raising a hall and room on the upper floor of the four shops. In the year 1981, door which was in use of the plaintiff, was locked by the defendant, whereas defendant was having no right at all to put a lock on the door and demolish the balcony of plaintiff, which exists in the southern side of the room. In the year 1981, door which was in use of the plaintiff, was locked by the defendant, whereas defendant was having no right at all to put a lock on the door and demolish the balcony of plaintiff, which exists in the southern side of the room. Nemichand raised construction at the upper floor of the room and shops and in the year 1981 constructed wall without having any right and despite of restraining him from doing so, also opened/constructed a door and two windows towards the roof-side of the plaintiff. Nemichand wanted to construct stairs upon the roof of the plaintiff for which he was having no right at all and it was prayed that the said wall may be demolished which was constructed by defendant no. 1 on the eastern side of room and to remove the raw materials from the chowk, which was causing problems and also to close the drainage of toilet constructed at the first floor and to remove toilet and bath, and also defendant no. 1 be directed to open lock of the door of the room and prayed for issuance of mandatory and permanent injunction. 2. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff Babulal and defendant Nemichand died and their legal heirs were brought on record. 3. The appellant/defendant filed written statement, inter-alia, with the averments that the chowk, staircase and sadar gate are not included as common portion. Chowk, staircase and sadar gate always remained with Anandi and defendant no. 1 became owner of the said property through registered will. Chowk, stairs and gate commonly came to be used by all the parties. It is averred in the written statement that defendant no. 1 raised the construction in question in the year 1958 and never raised any construction adjoining to the property of plaintiff whereas the plaintiff himself closed the said windows and the door from inside. The defendant denied the averment in the plaint regarding demolition of balcony and further stated that there is no need for removal of balcony because there is separate stair situated in the chowk for common use, through which defendant no. 1 commonly use the said balcony to approach to his balcony because there is no separate way to come at his balcony from inside and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. 1 commonly use the said balcony to approach to his balcony because there is no separate way to come at his balcony from inside and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed as many as 12 issues including the issue of relief. In support of his case, plaintiff produced and got examined Manohar as PW-1, whose statement was recorded and 3 documents were exhibited, namely site plan, sale-deed, Commissioner's report etc. whereas, defendant produced and got examined DW-1 Rajesh, whose statement was recorded. 5. After hearing the arguments of both sides, learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.2005 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff against the appellant and ordered to remove the platform constructed in chowk and to remove the raw material lying in the chowk and also restrained him from opening the drainage in the chowk not to create any hurdle in use of the property of the plaintiff and also restrained defendant no. 1 from removing the balcony on the southern side of the room of the plaintiff and also to remove the stairs constructed by defendant no. 1 on the roof of the plaintiff. 6. The appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the first appellate court affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Hence this second appeal by the defendant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment and decrees are absolutely illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the material available on record. It is further contended that the courts below have committed a gross error while ignoring the material facts of the case as well as legal proposition of law and, therefore, the impugned judgment and decrees are liable to be quashed and set aside, and relied on the judgment rendered by Apex court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594 . 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decrees, as well as the judgment relied upon. 9. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decrees, as well as the judgment relied upon. 9. In first appeal, the plaintiff respondent also filed a cross objection by which in addition to the decree being affirmed, it was directed by the first appellate court that the plaintiff respondent was entitled to demolish the construction of toilet made on the balcony (chhajja), as it was found by the first appellate court that this was constructed later-on. The courts below have taken into consideration statement of DW-1 Rajesh, who admitted that the chowk 5 feet x 15 feet, was found with marble installed in it. A compromise, if any, was between Phool Chand and Nemi Chand but Babulal, the plaintiff respondent, was not a party to the said compromise, therefore, any compromise entered into by and between Phool Chand and Nemi Chand cannot be read against Babulal and Babulal was unaffected with such compromise. Even otherwise, as per Exh.3, plaintiff Babulal only gave right to use otherwise no ownership or title was passed in favour of others and in the garb the appellant defendant not only made encroachment but obstructed the rights of the plaintiff respondent by constructing toilet on the balcony. All these have been considered by the appellate court in a just and proper manner by analysing evidence led on behalf of the parties and particularly taking into consideration the statements on behalf of the appellant- defendant, which has rightly been analysed. 10. In my view, the appellate court has rightly concurred with the finding arrived at by the trial court and once there is a concurrent finding returned by both the courts below, and learned counsel for the appellant having not pointed out any illegality or infirmity or perversity being committed by the appellate court, no interference by this court in the impugned judgment and decrees is called for. The judgment relied upon is also distinguishable on facts and inapplicable, therefore, is of no assistance to the appellant in the facts of present case. No substantial question of law can be said to emerge or arise. 11. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.