JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff's suit, bearing Civil Suit No. 143/1 of 2006, claiming therein, rendition, of, a decree, of, permanent prohibitory injunction vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, and, against the defendants, stood dismissed, hence by the learned trial Court, (i) and, in an appeal, bearing Civil Appeal No. 2-AK/13 of 2014, carried therefrom, by the plaintiff, before the learned first appellate Court, the latter Court also, thereon made, a verdict hence affirming, the, verdict, of, dismissal, of, the plaintiffs' suit, as pronounced, by the learned trial Judge concerned. The plaintiff, being aggrieved, by the concurrently recorded verdicts, respectively, by, the learned trial Judge, and, by the learned first appellate Court, hence, for, begetting reversal(s) thereof, has instituted, the instant appeal, before this Court. As detailed in para No.1 of the plaint was abadi deh land where over they were having their residential houses. His double storey house was situated on point =B' whereas the house of the respondents was situated on point =C'. In between their houses there was a vacant space 20 feet in length and 2 feet vide on the back side and one feet wide on the front side, as specifically depicted in the enclosed sketch map. Adjacent to their house, the respondents were also having a tin roof 6 feet hight kitchen built in mortar masonry. There was also a window in his house opening towards the kitchen of the respondents, through which he had been receiving air and sunlight. By way of prescription, it had matured into easementary right. On 25.9.2006, the respondents threatened to raise construction over the place where their kitchen was situated and in this process, they also threatened to encroach upon the aforementioned vacant place and extend the projection of his slab over the slab of his house. But during the pendency of the suit and despite of the ad-interim injunction order, respondents by totally defying the court order raised the construction and thereby encroached upon the vacant space by extending the slab and thereby also blocked the air and light which used to be received by him through the window of his house. On the premises of the above, he sought a decree of mandatory injunction for demolition and removal of the overhanging projection raised over and above portion D to D of the enclosed site plan. 3. On the premises of the above, he sought a decree of mandatory injunction for demolition and removal of the overhanging projection raised over and above portion D to D of the enclosed site plan. 3. Respondents filed joint written statement and therein they raised preliminary objections of locus-standi, cause of action, maintainability, valuation and non-joinder of necessary parties etc. On merits, they did not deny the nature of the suit land as abadi deh and the existence of their residential houses there over, but denied the correctness of the site plan showing location of houses of the parties and the existence of any vacant space. Rather, they tried to show that the construction had been raised by them over their portion of the abadi land much prior to be institution of the present suit. They also denied the existence of any vacant space in between their houses and that of the appellant and the exercise of any easementary right to light and air by the appellant through any window of his house. On the premises thereof, they also denied that during the pendency of the suit and during the existence of any stay order, they had raised any construction in defiance of the court order. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court, struck, the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is without cause of action, as alleged? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act, conduct, deed and acquiescences, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for want of proper court fee and jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD 8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD 9. Whether the present amended suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD. 10. Relief. 5. OPD 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for want of proper court fee and jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD 8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD 9. Whether the present amended suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD. 10. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, the plaintiff, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court also dismissed, the, appeal, and, affirmed the findings, as, recorded by the learned trial Court. 6. Obviously, through the instant Regular Second Appeal, cast, before this Court, by the plaintiff, he seeks reversal of the concurrent pronouncements, made, against him, by both the learned Courts below. 7. This Court, on 30.10.2015, had, admitted the appeal, instituted by the plaintiff/appellant, against, the judgment and decree, rendered, by the learned first Appellate Court, upon, the hereinafter extracted, substantial question of law, for, its hence making, an adjudication thereon:- 1. Whether on account of misappreciation of the pleadings and law and also misreading of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the findings recorded by Courts below are erroneous and, as such, the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal being perverse and vitiated is not legally sustainable? Substantial question of Law No.1: 8. The plaintiff, cast, averment(s) in the suit, that owing to meteing, of, threatenings, hence by the defendants, to raise a wall, hence touching the wall of the plaintiff, (i) and, also their meteing further threatenings to raise, a, slab, upon, the lintel of the plaintiff, hence, on 25.9.2006, (ii) thereupon emanating hence imminent obstruction(s) vis-a-vis, his easementary right of air, and, light, and, hence irreparable loss, and, injuries being encumbered, upon, him. 9. On the afore averments, hence relief, of, permanent prohibitory injunction, was, claimed, and, as aforesaid, both the learned courts below rather declined the afore relief, to the plaintiff. Even though, the plaintiff, in his affidavit, borne in Ext. PW-1/A, as stood tendered, during, the course of his examination-in-chief, has, made echoings, rather bearing concurrence, with, the averments, cast, in the plaint, (i) however, merely, upon, the echoings, borne in, Ext. Even though, the plaintiff, in his affidavit, borne in Ext. PW-1/A, as stood tendered, during, the course of his examination-in-chief, has, made echoings, rather bearing concurrence, with, the averments, cast, in the plaint, (i) however, merely, upon, the echoings, borne in, Ext. PW-1/A, it would not be appropriate, to, grant the espoused relief, to the plaintiff, as even his deposition, as, embodied, in his cross examination, is enjoined to be read there along with. Uncontrovertibly, both the plaintiff, and, the defendants, have raised their respective projections, upon, the suit land, depicted, in, the apposite jamabandi, as abadi deh. PW-1, in his cross examination, has made candid echoings, qua, his house, as well as, the house of the defendants, rather visibly since the past 20 years, being separately raised, on separate portions, of, land, hence declared as abadi, (ii) he has further disclosed in his cross-examination, that, the khasra number, ascribed, in, the suit land, bearing 55, and, it carrying an area of 7 bighas, and, 13 biswa, and, in the afore khasra number, the estate right holders, hence, in, commensuration, vis-a-vis, their shares in the village, rather holding a right to make user thereof, by, raising their respective residential abodes hence thereon. He has also deposed, that, the construction(s) of abode, by the plaintiff, and, by the defendants, being within their shares, in the abadi land, and, also the residential/abodes, as, raised thereon, respectively by both, also bearing commensuration, vis-a-vis, their apposite valid possessions thereof. Further he makes, a, disclosure in his examination-in-chief, qua, his erecting, a, boundary line encircling his abode, and, the afore boundary wall rather being raised 20 years, preceding, the, institution, of, the extant suit. Further there on wards, he has made, a, disclosure qua there existing, a, space, inter-se his house, and, the house of the defendants, and, that two windows rather, facing the ground floor of the defendants, rather also occurring thereon. He has also testified that the house of the defendants, is above the ground floor, and, basement, vis-a-vis his house, and, his house, is, located about 13 feet above, the house, of, the defendants. Importantly, in his cross-examination, he has made testification qua his failing, to, place on record, any photographical evidence, making candid display, qua, in the defendants raising the apt construction, theirs making untenable projection rather towards his house. 10. Importantly, in his cross-examination, he has made testification qua his failing, to, place on record, any photographical evidence, making candid display, qua, in the defendants raising the apt construction, theirs making untenable projection rather towards his house. 10. Be that as it may, upon making, the imperative conjoint readings, of the afore echoings, as, borne in the cross-examination, of, the plaintiff, hence unfoldings emerge, (i) qua there being a space inter-se the house of the plaintiff, (ii) and, the defendants, and, with his visibly failing to adduce, any cogent evidence, hence making displays, vis-a-vis, in the defendant(s), making construction(s) of his house, theirs/his attempting, to, lodge his projection, into the space, occurring, and, separating, the, house of the plaintiff, from, the house of the defendants. Pre-eminently, also when, the, plaintiff rather deposes, that, his two windows, facing the house, of, the defendants, occur on the ground floor of his house, and, when he does not make, any further disclosure, that the defendants, are, attempting to raise construction, in the afore space, as, occurs inter-se his house, and, the house of the defendants, thereupon all the afore depositions constrain this Court, to, conclude, (i) the plaintiff failing to prove that the defendants, are, raising construction, of, his house, in a manner, hence causing imminent obstruction, vis-a-vis, his easementary right, of, air and light, (ii) the defendant(s) is, constructing or attempting to construct, overhangings, his not, raising them in a manner, so as to lodge them, on the wall of the house, of, the plaintiff. The abstract of the afore discussion, is, that when the plaintiff, has failed to prove the averments, in the plaint, and, also when a, reading, of, his cross-examination, does, for the reasons aforestated, baulk his espoused relief, (iii) thereupon, the espoused relief, of, injunction stood tenably declined, by both the learned courts below, and, the verdict(s) of dismissal, of, the plaintiff suit, as, pronounced, respectively by the learned trial Judge, and, latter affirmed, by, the learned first appellate Court, do not, warrant any interference from this Court. 11. The above discussion, unfolds, qua the conclusions, as arrived by the learned Courts below, being based, upon a proper and mature appreciation, of, evidence on record. Accordingly, the substantial question, of law, is, answered, in, favour of the defendants/respondents, and, against the plaintiff/appellant herein. 12. 11. The above discussion, unfolds, qua the conclusions, as arrived by the learned Courts below, being based, upon a proper and mature appreciation, of, evidence on record. Accordingly, the substantial question, of law, is, answered, in, favour of the defendants/respondents, and, against the plaintiff/appellant herein. 12. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal, is, dismissed, and, the judgment and decree impugned, before this Court, is, affirmed and maintained. Consequently, the plaintiff's suit is dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.