JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. This is plaintiff's second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the dismissal of his suit by the trial Court as also the First Appellate Court. 2. Plaintiff and defendants are real brothers. Plaintiff filed a suit before learned trial court bearing Civil Suit No. 7-1 of 2015 on the premise that the suit land comprised in khata khatauni No. 53/112, Khasra No.154, measuring 00-03-79 hectares situated in Chak Thana, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P., was having an ancestral house of the parties, which as per the family settlement has been in their possession as per separate respective shares. The passage for entry and exit to respective portions of the parties was common through the veranda of the defendant. It was alleged that on 6.12.2014, the defendant tried to obstruct the common passage and his attempt was thwarted. Plaintiff expressed the apprehension of being under constant threat of being divested from the common passage. He alleged that the defendant had been threatening to construct a room in the veranda used as a common passage. 3. Reliefs as prayed by the plaintiff in the suit read as under: - “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed with costs in his favour as prayed for and against the defendant restraining him by way of permanent prohibitory injunction in any manner encroaching upon or interfering with the peaceful and lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land Khata Khatauni No. 53/112 Khasra number 154 area measuring 0- 03-79 hectares situated in Chak Thana, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. or to make alteration, blockade of passage. AND The defendant be also restrained from effecting any construction over any part of suit land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 53/112, Khasra number 154 area measuring 0-03-79 hectares situated in Chak Thana, Tehsil Jubbal, Distt. Shimla, H.P. either himself or through his agents, servants, workmen, labourers etc., in any manner whatsoever. AND Such other relief, injunction order or decree as this Ld. Court deems fit and proper in the facts of circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.” 4. Defendant contested the suit by alleging that there was a passage available to respective portions of the parties from the court yard. AND Such other relief, injunction order or decree as this Ld. Court deems fit and proper in the facts of circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.” 4. Defendant contested the suit by alleging that there was a passage available to respective portions of the parties from the court yard. Plaintiff had covered the court yard in front of his house by new construction and thereafter has been making endeavour to claim right of passage through the house of the defendant. The factum of both the parties having settled in their respective portions of ancestral house was not denied. Defendant raised counter allegations against the plaintiff that on 4.12.2014, in the absence of defendant, the plaintiff tried to encroach upon the portion of the hall on the first floor of the house, which otherwise was in possession of the defendant. 5. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the defendant himself as well as through his agent, servants etc., is liable to be restrained from causing any interference as well as from raising any construction upon the suit land through a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for identification of the suit land house situated over the same, as alleged? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as he has not come to the court with clean hands, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the real and material facts from the court, as alleged? OPD. 7. Relief. 6. Issues No. 1, 3 and 4 were answered in the negative and remaining issues were answered in affirmative. Consequently, the suit of plaintiff was dismissed. Learned trial Court held the plaintiff disentitled from relief, firstly on the ground that the relief sought in the plaint was not in consonance with the alleged cause of action raised by the plaintiff, secondly there was no proper identification of the suit property and lastly, the plaintiff was not entitled to equitable relief as he had failed to do equity. Plaintiff had raised construction in front of his house and as such he was not entitled to restrain the defendant from using his portion of veranda. 7. Plaintiff in first appeal has remained unsuccessful. Learned First Appellant Court has affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 8. The instant appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law on 28.08.2019:- 1. Whether the finding returned by the learned Courts below to the effect that the appellant/plaintiff was not entitled for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is a result of mis reading and mis-appreciation of evidence on record? 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 10. Both the courts below have rendered concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiff had raised construction over vacant land in front of the ancestral house which earlier served as a passage to his house and on such count he was disentitled from claiming right of passage from the veranda which has fallen to the share of defendant. Such findings are clearly borne from the records. A specific plea to above effect finds mention in the written statement filed by the defendant. There is an admission of plaintiff in the cross-examination to the effect that he has raised construction on the vacant portion of the land in front of his house. There is no illegality or perversity in such findings and for such reason need no interference. 11. In the above background, if the case of the plaintiff is analysed, it is clearly evident that except for confusing claims, plaintiff has not been able to prove his exact grievance. He claimed a right of passage through the veranda of defendant without pleading or proving the basis of such right. Plaintiff did not claim such right either as grant or easement. He has also not been able to prove that the veranda, which plaintiff referred to as common passage, was kept as common at the time of settlement between the parties. 12. Plaintiff did not claim such right either as grant or easement. He has also not been able to prove that the veranda, which plaintiff referred to as common passage, was kept as common at the time of settlement between the parties. 12. Further, in order to secure a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of immovable property, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to have firstly pleaded and proved his right over the alleged veranda and more importantly to have identified the alleged common passage in accordance with law so as to enable the Court to pass an effective and executable decree. 13. In the facts of the case in hand, the absence of identification of the alleged common passage, no decree could be passed against the defendant. 14. Further, the vague and uncertain nature of relief sought in the plaint also rendered the case of the plaintiff vulnerable. The entire alleged grievance as raised by the plaintiff was in respect was right of passage, whereas he claimed decree to restrain the defendant from raising construction or interference with entire suit land. 15. Accordingly, the substantial question of law, as framed, is answered in negative. 16. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Records be sent back forthwith.