JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The present appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the judgment and decree dt. 20.09.2016, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 4, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Court'), vide which the judgment and decree dt. 25.01.2016, passed by Additional Civil Judge, No. 1, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') has been affirmed. 2. The relevant facts if stated concisely runs as follows. The plaintiff-Smt. Indu Singhal, respondent herein, filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and so also for enforcement of her easementary right with respect to open land/lane between her house i.e. quarter No. 3 and defendant's house being quarter No. 10 in Pokar Quarters, Bikaner. According to the facts set out, in all 13 quarters were constructed by Ramratan and Krishna Kant. The plaintiff/her father-in-law have been living in quarter No. 3, as tenants since 1948. Subsequent thereto, the landlord sold the said quarter to the plaintiff vide a registered sale deed dt. 22.06.1981, which sale deed contained a clear stipulation to the effect that the open land/gali between Quarters No. 3 & 10 having width of 4 ft. shall be kept open for easementary rights of air and light. The adjacent quarter No. 10 later came to be purchased by the defendant by way of registered sale deed dt. 29.03.2009, who started raising construction on the 4 ft. strip of land meant to be kept open. 3. Faced with this, the plaintiff-respondent herein instituted the subject suit. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment and, decree dt. 25.01.2016, inter alia holding that the plaintiff and her father-in-law have been living in her house i.e. quarter No. 3 since 1948, hence they have derived easementary rights qua the common/open space between quarters No. 3 and 10. It was also found by the trial Court that in view of the clear stipulation in plaintiff's sale deed dt. 22.06.1981, she was entitled for injunction besides the easementary right accrued to her, consequent to continuous beneficial use of such open land for air and light. The trial Court has further observed that on the date of purchasing the property on 29.03.2009, the defendant was aware of such easementary right accrued to the plaintiff and as such he cannot raise construction, interfering with the plaintiff's easementary rights. 5. The trial Court has further observed that on the date of purchasing the property on 29.03.2009, the defendant was aware of such easementary right accrued to the plaintiff and as such he cannot raise construction, interfering with the plaintiff's easementary rights. 5. As regards defendant's stand that he had purchased the contentious land, the trial Court found that sale of land of 3 ft. was void ab initio qua plaintiff's right Having recorded such findings, the trial Court issued injunction and directed the defendant-appellant to remove the construction on the disputed 3 ft. wide lane. 6. The appellant challenged the judgment and decree dt. 25.01.2016 by way of an appeal, but the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court, vide its judgment and decree dt. 20.09.2016. 7. Learned Appellate Court delved upon the findings recorded by the trial Court, material produced and evidence adduced; before rejecting the appellant's appeal, vide its judgment dt. 20.09.2016. 8. Mr. Purohit-learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the judgments passed by the learned Courts below contended that the Courts below have misread the evidence and have failed to appreciate the fact that 3 ft. wide lane was covered by the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant. He submitted that stipulation of open land in plaintiff's sale deed cannot override the defendant's title and rights over the open land, flowing from the sale deed executed in his favour or in favour of his predecessor in title by Krishna Kant, who was the common vendor selling the quarters to plaintiff and defendant as well. 9. Learned counsel further contended that Appellate Court was required to decide the appeal while recording issue-wise findings, whereas it has passed a cursory order while rejecting his appeal. 10. Mr. Purohit further argued that in view of the provisions contained in Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, the defendant's right qua the open land cannot be curtailed or given a go-by. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2015 AIR (Raj.) 71 in the case of Roshan Lal vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 12. As far as the contention of alleged procedural error or irregularity in the appellate judgment and decree dt. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 12. As far as the contention of alleged procedural error or irregularity in the appellate judgment and decree dt. 20.09.2016 is concerned, suffice it to observe that the Appellate Court has recorded its findings issue-wise, which is evident from paras No. 8 to 13 of its judgment and decree. It is a different aspect of the matter that the Appellate Court has conjointly decided all the issues instead of deciding the appeal issue by issue. Nevertheless, the Appellate Court has delved upon the contentions, evidence and even the judgments cited by the rival parties with respect to each of the issue and no part of the trial Court's judgment or the argument has been left unattended. 13. Adverting to the appellant's argument based on Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act and the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Roshan Lal vs. Manoj Kumar (supra), I find that the facts of the present case are substantially different than the facts available before this Court, while deciding the case of Roshan Lal vs. Manoj Kumar (supra). In the present case, the vendor of both the properties namely; quarters No. 3 & 10 owned by the plaintiff and defendant is one person i.e. Krishna Kant, who had consciously made a stipulation regarding common land between quarters No. 3 & 10 to be kept open and for the use of the plaintiff while executing sale deed in plaintiff's favour on 22.06.1981. However, in relation to sale of quarter No. 10, which was firstly made to the defendant's predecessor on 25.03.1988, the said vendor-Krishna Kant has purportedly sold the open land between these two quarter. According to me, such sale was void ab initio, as far as the plaintiff's rights are concerned. The plaintiff was entitled to secure a decree on both the Courts, viz. stipulation in her sale deed and easementary rights for continuous use of the disputed strip of land. 14. I do not find any substance in appellant's first argument that the Courts below have not appreciated the material available on record in its true prospective. 15. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. 14. I do not find any substance in appellant's first argument that the Courts below have not appreciated the material available on record in its true prospective. 15. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises, hence, the appeal is dismissed. The stay application No. 552/2017 is also dismissed.