JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal has been preferred by and on behalf of appellant-plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.03.1998 passed by Civil Judge (JD) Neem ka Thana in Civil Suit No.215/93 (88/78) whereby and whereunder although the plaintiff's suit for prohibitory injunction has been decreed but the trial court has declined to grant decree for mandatory injunction and further the judgment and decree has been affirmed in first appeal No.18/1998 passed by Additional District Judge, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar vide judgment dated 15.10.2011 filed by the appellant-plaintiff. 2. Heard counsel for appellant and peruse the material available on record. 3. The dispute between the parties is in relation to a gali having width of 3 ft. situated towards north of plaintiff's haveli. Plaintiff instituted a civil suit on 28.06.1978 alleging inter alia that the gali in question is of ownership and possession of plaintiff on the basis of patta of haveli (Exhibit-1A) and since defendants have opened their windows, ventilators, nala, pernala of their house in first floor, second floor and third floor towards the gali in question which violates the right of privacy of plaintiff, hence, a mandatory injunction be issued against defendants to close their windows, ventilators, nala, pernala. Further the defendants be restrained not to open their windows, ventilators, nala, pernala in the gali and not to disturb the right of privacy of plaintiffs. 4. It was averred in the plaint that earlier litigation between predecessors of the parties, Chief Court decided the dispute finally but thereafter, predecessors of both parties entered into an agreement dated 24.05.1960 (Exhibit-C-6). As per agreement, plaintiff's father permitted defendants to have open their windows, ventilators, nala, pernala in the first floor but defendants have opened the windows, ventilators, nala, pernala in the second and third floor as well which is against the terms of agreement as well as causing damage to the walls of the plaintiffs and infringing the right of privacy of the plaintiffs. 5. Defendants submitted written statement alleging inter alia that the gali in question is of common use as has already been adjudicated in the previous litigation by the judgment of Chief Court. 6. The trial court, as per rival pleadings of parties, framed issues and recorded evidence of both parties. 7. 5. Defendants submitted written statement alleging inter alia that the gali in question is of common use as has already been adjudicated in the previous litigation by the judgment of Chief Court. 6. The trial court, as per rival pleadings of parties, framed issues and recorded evidence of both parties. 7. On appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record, the trial court observed that plaintiff's claim of having absolute ownership and possession of gali in question is based on patta whereas in the previous litigation, the Chief Court has decided the gali in question to be of common use. Further the trial court observed that plaintiff himself admits that under the agreement dated 24.05.1960, plaintiff's father himself consented and allowed the defendants to open the windows, ventilators, nala, pernala in the gali in question. It is not proved that defendants opened the windows, ventilators, nala, pernala in the second and third floor, just before institution of the suit and once the gali has been held to be of common use, the mandatory injunction against the defendant to close their windows, ventilators, nala, pernala cannot be granted. 8. As per site report submitted by the Court Commissioner, the nala and pernala were not found to be prejudicial to the plaintiff's interest. In relation to the claim of right of privacy, the trial court placed reliance on Section 18 of the Easement Act and held that in the present case, the claim of right of privacy is not an actionable claim. 9. As per factual matrix, no infringement of the right of privacy of plaintiff was found by opening the windows and ventilators in the gali in question. Nevertheless, trial court in order to do justice and to prevent any damage to the wall of plaintiff's haveli by the flow of water through nala and pernala, has passed the injunction in prohibitory manner, while denying the issuance of mandatory injunction, in such manner as held as under:- 10. Defendants did not challenge the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 04.03.1998 however, the plaintiff preferred first appeal thereagainst. 11. During the course of first appeal, the respondent-defendant No.1-Khem Chand passed away and since appellant did not take any steps to substitute his legal representatives, the appeal was declared abated qua respondent-defendant No.1-Khem Chand vide order dated 22.07.2006 but was continued against respondent- defendant No.2 through his legal representatives. 12. 11. During the course of first appeal, the respondent-defendant No.1-Khem Chand passed away and since appellant did not take any steps to substitute his legal representatives, the appeal was declared abated qua respondent-defendant No.1-Khem Chand vide order dated 22.07.2006 but was continued against respondent- defendant No.2 through his legal representatives. 12. The first appellate court re-considered the evidence on record and observed that it is not proved that any windows, ventilators, nala, pernala in the second and third floor have been opened by defendants between March, 1977 to August, 1977. Rather it is not in dispute that under the agreement dated 24.05.1960 plaintiff's father had permitted the defendants to open the windows and ventilators in the first floor. The claim of ownership over the gali in question based on patta has already been denied in the previous litigation decided by the Chief Court under its judgment dated 12.07.1934 (Exhibit-2). The claim of right of privacy of plaintiff was denied. In the given facts and circumstances, finally the first appellate court, having concurred with the fact findings of trial court, dismissed the first appeal vide judgment dated 15.10.2011. 13. Both courts below have considered the case of appellant- plaintiff, for seeking issuance of mandatory injunction and have observed that plaintiff miserably failed to show his exclusive ownership and possession over the gali in question on the basis of patta and further as per the admitted agreement dated 24.05.1960, plaintiff's father himself permitted defendants to open the windows, ventilators, nala, pernala in the first floor. 14. Both courts below have recorded a fact finding that it is proved that defendants open their windows, ventilators, nala, pernala second floor and third floor just preceding to the suit. Hence in such factual backdrop, the gali in question was held to be of common use and right of privacy as claimed by plaintiff has rightly been declined. 15. Learned counsel for appellant-plaintiff has not been able to prove his case or to point out any perversity or make out any substantial question of law in respect of the judgment and decree passed by courts below. There are concurrent findings of fact. The substantial questions of law as proposed by appellant-plaintiff are essentially questions of fact requiring re-appreciation of evidence, which is not permissible within the scope of Section 100 of CPC, unless and until there is some illegality or perversity in findings. There are concurrent findings of fact. The substantial questions of law as proposed by appellant-plaintiff are essentially questions of fact requiring re-appreciation of evidence, which is not permissible within the scope of Section 100 of CPC, unless and until there is some illegality or perversity in findings. None of the question of law, falls within the purview of substantial question of law. In order to exercise the scope of Section 100 of CPC, involvement/formulation of substantial question of law is sine qua non. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court In cases of Pakeerappa Rai Vs. Seethamma Hengsu & Ors., [ (2001)9 SCC 521 ], Thulasidhara & Anr. Vs. Narayanappa & Ors., [ (2019) 6 SCC 409 ], Bholaram Vs. Ameerchand, [ (1981)2 SCC 414 ], Ishwar Das Jain Vs. Sohan Lal, [ (2000)1 SCC 434 ] and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sabal Singh & Ors., [ (2019)10 SCC 595 ], C. Doddanrayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. C. Jayarama Reddy and ors. [ (2020)4 SCC 659 ], has categorically held that at the stage of second appeal, fact findings recorded by two Courts below, based on appreciation of evidence, should be honoured and must not be interfered with unless and until there is some perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error which leads manifest injustice. Once findings of fact recorded by two Courts below are justified and based on due appreciation of evidence, re- appreciation of evidence at the stage of second appeal in order to draw a different conclusion is not warranted. 17. Learned counsel for appellant also could not point out that the findings of fact recorded by two courts below are suffered from any infirmity/illegality or misreading/non-reading of evidence. In such circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Subsequently is sine qua non for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC and to entertain the second appeal. Hence, the second appeal is found to be devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. 18. No order as to cost. 19. Record be sent back forthwith. 20. Stay application and any other pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.