JUDGMENT : Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - The civil Second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 01.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhalawar (for brevity, "the learned Appellate Court") in Civil Regular Appeal No.16/2013 whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the judgment dated 22.08.2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jhalawar (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") decreeing the Suit No.05/2011 filed by the respondent/plaintiff (for brevity, "plaintiff") for mandatory and permanent injunction, has been affirmed. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the appellant/defendant (for brevity, "defendant") with the averments that he wanted to encroach upon a 10 feet wide public way situated in between the plots of the parties. The defendant denying existence of any public way in between their plots in his written statement, filed a counter claim seeking a decree of injunction against the plaintiff not to encroach upon land of his plot. 3. On the basis is pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court settled three issues. 4. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment dated 22.08.2013 which has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 01.05.2019. 5. Assailing the judgment and decreed, learned counsel for the defendant submits that the learned Court erred in not appreciating the Ex-A2, the patta issued in his favour which did not disclose existence of any public way towards its western side, i.e., towards the plot of the plaintiff. She, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 01.05.2019 be quashed and set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. The learned Court has returned the findings qua Issue No.1 as to existence of a 10 feet way in between plots of the parties in favour of the plaintiff taking into consideration the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. The learned Court has returned the findings qua Issue No.1 as to existence of a 10 feet way in between plots of the parties in favour of the plaintiff taking into consideration the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record. It was appreciated that in the Ex-1, patta and the Ex-2, the sale deed, both issued and executed by the Gram Panchayat Thobadiya in favour of the plaintiff, a 10 feet wide public way has been shown towards eastern side of her plot i.e. towards plot of the defendant and in the Ex-A2, the patta issued by the same Gram Panchayat in favour of the defendant, a 10 feet wide way has been shown towards its western side, i.e., towards plot of the plaintiff. This Court has also gone through the aforesaid documents and finds no perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Court. Further, the defendant as DW-1 has admitted during his cross-examination that a 10 feet wide way has been shown towards western side in the patta issued to him; but, claims that it does not exist at the site. 8. In view of the aforesaid evidence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Court did not err in holding that a 10 feet wide way exists in between the plots of the parties and in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. 9. Since, no substantial question of law is involved in the civil second appeal, the same is dismissed accordingly.