JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment. The suit was for mandatory injunction. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that he filed T.S. No.50/85 in the court of the learned Munsif, Baripada against his mother and brother, defendant nos.1 and 2 and the legal heirs of uncle Ramanath Barik for a declaration that the wall of the ground floor situated in between his house, defendant nos.1 and 2 on one side and the house of the legal heirs of Ramanath on the other is a common wall of the parties, permanent injunction retraining the defendants from interfering in his right to use the wall and raising construction over the same pleading, inter alia, that with his consent, the legal heirs of Ramanath constructed a double storied building on the common wall on the ground floor and made a R.C.C. roof on their first floor. There was an understanding between the parties that the wall of their first floor would be used as a common wall. When the plaintiff wanted to make construction of his first floor over his house, the family members of Ramanath branch did not permit him to use the common wall. The suit was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed T.A. No. 6/38 of 94/90 in the court of the learned District Judge. The same was dismissed. The suit wall was declared as the joint wall of parties. The court declared his right to use the wall and to make constructions over the same. Thereafter the plaintiff constructed two rooms. On 16.04.1999, defendant no.2 forcefully trespassed into the first floor room and dismantled the same. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. Defendant no.2 entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendant no.2 was that the suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable. The first floor of the suit house was in existence since long. The plaintiff had not constructed the first floor. The same was constructed by defendant no.1 about twenty five years back. The plaintiff was not in possession of the suit house. The judgment and decree in T.A. No. 6/38/94-90 had attained finality. The plaintiff and his family members were in occupation of the same. He did not trespass forcibly into the first floor. The same was constructed by defendant no.1 about twenty five years back. The plaintiff was not in possession of the suit house. The judgment and decree in T.A. No. 6/38/94-90 had attained finality. The plaintiff and his family members were in occupation of the same. He did not trespass forcibly into the first floor. The plaintiff has absolutely no right, title and interest over the same. He is in occupation of the ground floor prior to the filing of the suit for partition in the year 1989. In T.S. No. 115/89, Bhabani Shankar Barik, who was one of the defendants, admitted in his written statement that he is residing in the first floor. The first floor of the suit house is his exclusive property. The plaintiff admitted in his evidence in T.S. No. 115/89 that it was mutually agreed that Abhay Shankar Barik would reside in the first floor of the suit building. In view of such admission, the plaintiff cannot take the stand that the first floor was not in existence by the time of filing of T.S. No. 115/89. The plaintiff is in possession of some portions of the ground floor and also corresponding space of the first floor. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck seven issues. Both the parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. Learned trial court came to hold that there is no evidence on record that the plaintiff has constructed the first floor. The order passed in the appeal, vide Ext.,3 reveals that the wall in question is a common wall. The property is in joint possession. Placing reliance on a decision in Nagendranath Bose v. Girija Prasad Bose, 1973 (II) CWR 1525, learned trial court came to hold that since the parties are in joint possession, no injunction can be granted. Held so, it dismissed the suit. The unsuccessful plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court before the learned District Judge, Baripada, which was subsequently transferred to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Baripada and renumbered as R.F.A. No. 55/13 of 2007-2006. The appeal was eventually dismissed. 5. Mr. Prakash Ranjan Barik, learned advocate for the appellant argues with vehemence that the plaintiff has constructed the first floor. He is residing therein with his family. His brother-defendant no.2 is residing in the ground floor. The appeal was eventually dismissed. 5. Mr. Prakash Ranjan Barik, learned advocate for the appellant argues with vehemence that the plaintiff has constructed the first floor. He is residing therein with his family. His brother-defendant no.2 is residing in the ground floor. Since he has created disturbances in the possession of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction. 6. The plaintiff claimed that he has constructed the first floor. No document in support of his claim is filed. In the earlier suit for partition, i.e., T.S. No. 115/89 filed by the plaintiff, the defendants filed a written statement vide Ext.A stating, inter alia, that he is in occupation of the first floor. Learned trial court came to hold that his first floor was constructed in the year 1989. The courts below held that the property is in joint possession. Since both the courts below concurrently held that the first floor is in joint possession of the parties, the suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable. 7. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, since the same does not involve any substantial question of law.