JUDGMENT Vivek Rusia, J. - Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the present second appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2015 passed by IVth Civil Judge, Class-II, Khargone and judgment dated 08.05.2018 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Khargone whereby the civil suit as well as first appeal both have been dismissed. Facts of the case in short are as under: 2. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. According to the plaintiff, he is the owner of two storied house which is constructed over area 15 x 40 sq. ft. of plot No.19. He purchased the aforesaid plot from Babulal Naik vide registered sale deed dated 28.03.1988. Thereafter he obtained the building permission on 30.09.1991 and started construction. In the year 1995 he completed the construction and started paying tax to the local bodies. According to the plaintiff, the boundaries of his house are as under: Direction Boundary North 10 ft. common lane for disposal of drainage water and for his easementary right of air and light South Diversion road East House of Nawab West Reaming property of the owner 3. In the ground floor he is having exit from south and north side and in the first and second floor he is having a ventilation and pipeline for disposal of the drainage water towards 10 ft. lane (north side). The said 10 ft. lane is in his possession since 1988, therefore, he has acquired the title by way of adverse possession. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 with the help of defendant No.2 started construction over 10x60 ft. lane and he made a complaint to defendants No.3 & 4 on 13.05.2006 & 14.05.2006 that there is a possibility of obstruction of light and air after completion of the said construction. He has also lodged a report in the Police Station and sent legal notice to defendants No.1 & 2. Since defendants No.3 & 4 have not taken any action to stop illegal construction, therefore, he has filed the present suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. 4. Defendants No.1 & 2 filed the written statement by submitting that defendant No.1 was the owner of plot No.19, area 40x60 ft. which he had sold to Babulal Naik. He has not given any right of disposal of drainage water and ventilation from plot No.19 to him. 4. Defendants No.1 & 2 filed the written statement by submitting that defendant No.1 was the owner of plot No.19, area 40x60 ft. which he had sold to Babulal Naik. He has not given any right of disposal of drainage water and ventilation from plot No.19 to him. Babulal Naik has sold the land admeasuring 40x60 sq.ft. in four plots admeasuring 15x40 sq. ft. One of the plot has been purchased by the plaintiff and constructed the house. The alleged 10x60 ft. lane is a part of plot No.19 owned by defendant No.1 which is not a common lane to be used for the easementary right of air, light and disposal of the drainage water. In the sale deed dated 28.03.1988 the map is attached in which on the north side plot No.19 is shown and there is no mention about the 10x60 ft. common lane, therefore, the plaint be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed 3 issues for adjudication. After appreciating the evidence came on record vide judgment and decree dated 29.04.2011 learned Civil Judge has dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred first appeal before the IVth Additional District Judge along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. Along with the said application the plaintiff has filed the map and photographs. Vide judgment dated 24.03.2015 the learned first appellate Court has allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and remanded the case to the trial Court to decide it afresh after taking additional documentary evidence on record. 6. After the remand, the plaintiff entered into the witness box and got exhibited certain photographs and a map prepared by him. He has been cross examined and thereafter vide judgment dated 08.07.2015 learned Civil Judge has dismissed the suit. 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal of the suit, plaintiff preferred a first appeal and that too has been dismissed vide judgment dated 08.05.2018, hence the present second appeal before this Court. 8. I have heard Shri J.B.Dave, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 9. Plaintiff approached the civil Court by way of a suit alleging that there is a common lane of 10x60 ft. on the north side of his house which he has been using for air, light and disposal of drainage water. 8. I have heard Shri J.B.Dave, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 9. Plaintiff approached the civil Court by way of a suit alleging that there is a common lane of 10x60 ft. on the north side of his house which he has been using for air, light and disposal of drainage water. He is in possession of the said lane since last 28 years, therefore, he has acquired the title by way of adverse possession. The defendant No.1 was the owner of plot No.19 & 20. He sold the plot No.19 to Babulal Naik, who in turn sold the said plot to 4 different persons. One of the plot was purchased by the present plaintiff in which he constructed a two storied house. There is a map attached with the sale deed dated 28.03.1988 in which the boundaries of the map are clearly mentioned. On the north side plot No.20 is mentioned which is owned by the defendant No.1 and there is no dispute about the remaining 3 boundaries of the plot in question. Since plot No.20 was vacant, therefore, the plaintiff has opened an exit gate on the north side and also windows but he cannot claim that he has acquired the title by way of adverse possession. In his sale deed the said area is mentioned as plot No.20 and not as a common lane for the use of general public. As per the photographs that area is purely a commercial area in which various shops have been constructed. Even in plot No.19 the plaintiff and other 3 owners have constructed the shops. Now the defendant No.1 is constructing a shop on plot No.20 and the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and injunction. The plaintiff in his cross examination has specifically admitted that in Ex.P/8 i.e. the registered sale deed the boundaries of the plot is mentioned in which on the north side plot No.20 is mentioned and there is no mention about the 10 ft. wide lane. PW/2 in his cross examination has also admitted the same fact. The photograph of the site plan appended to the sale deed dated 28.03.1988 is reproduced below in order to understand the case of the plaintiff. 10. wide lane. PW/2 in his cross examination has also admitted the same fact. The photograph of the site plan appended to the sale deed dated 28.03.1988 is reproduced below in order to understand the case of the plaintiff. 10. It is clear from the aforesaid photograph that on the north side plot No.20 has been specifically mentioned and there is no mention about the alleged common lane. The plaintiff is already having an exit towards the south side i.e. diversion road. The defendant No.1 is having right to construct the shop on his own land and this fact was very much in the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time of execution of the sale deed dated 28.03.1988. The entire civil proceedings are nothing but misuse of process of law by the plaintiff. Twice the civil Court has dismissed the suit and once the first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal. Learned first appellate Court vide judgment dated 24.03.2015 has wrongly remanded the case to the trial Court. Even after remand the plaintiff has produced the map prepared by him and that is not an official map prepared by the Corporation or Govt. authorities, therefore, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the map Ex.P/31. The photographs filed by the plaintiff also show that the area in dispute i.e. 10x60 ft. is a part of plot No.20 in which other shops have been constructed and the defendant is constructing shop in the remaining area. The plaintiff has wrongly claimed it as common lane. 11. In second appeal the High Court can interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the subordinate Courts only on a question of law much less substantial question of law. The finding of fact recorded by the Courts below are not liable to be interfered with unless the same are perverse. 12. The apex Court in the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, (1999) 3 SCC 722 , has held as under: 5. It is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at, by the last court of fact, being the first appellate court. 12. The apex Court in the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, (1999) 3 SCC 722 , has held as under: 5. It is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at, by the last court of fact, being the first appellate court. It is true that the lower appellate court should not ordinarily reject witnesses accepted by the trial court in respect of credibility but even where it has rejected the witnesses accepted by the trial court, the same is no ground for interference in second appeal when it is found that the appellate court has given satisfactory reasons for doing so. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate court is binding on the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first appellate court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence. 6. If the question of law termed as a substantial question stands already decided by a larger Bench of the High Court concerned or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or by the Supreme Court, its merely wrong application on the facts of the case would not be termed to be a substantial question of law. Where a point of law has not been pleaded or is found to be arising between the parties in the absence of any factual format, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial question of law in second appeal. The mere appreciation of the facts, the documentary evidence or the meaning of entries and the contents of the document cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of law. But where it is found that the first appellate court has assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in it, the same can be adjudicated in the second appeal, treating it as a substantial question of law. But where it is found that the first appellate court has assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in it, the same can be adjudicated in the second appeal, treating it as a substantial question of law. Where the first appellate court is shown to have exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, it cannot be termed to be an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in second appeal. This Court in Reserve Bank of India v. Ramkrishna Govind Morey, (1976) AIR SC 830 held that whether the trial court should not have exercised its jurisdiction differently is not a question of law justifying interference. 13. In case of Laxmidevamma v. Ranganath, (2015) 4 SCC 264 , again the apex court has held as under: 16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plain-tiffs have established their right in A schedule property. In the light of the concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for reappreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the A schedule property for road and that she could not have full-fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to the plaintiffs' right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. 14. Recently, the Apex Court in case of Adiveppa & Others Vs. Bhimappa & Others, (2017) 9 SCC 586 has held as under: "17. Here is a case where two Courts below, on appreciating the entire evidence, have come to a conclusion that the Plaintiffs failed to prove their case in relation to both the suit properties. The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts, which do not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law, are binding on this Court. 18. The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts, which do not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law, are binding on this Court. 18. It is more so when these findings are neither against the pleadings nor against the evidence and nor contrary to any provision of law. They are also not perverse to the extent that no such findings could ever be recorded by any judicial person. In other words, unless the findings of facts, though concurrent, are found to be extremely perverse so as to affect the judicial conscious of a judge, they would be binding on the Appellate Court." 15. In view of the above, this appeal does not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-.