JUDGMENT : Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J. 1. The instant civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 23.03.1995 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dholpur (for short ‘the appellate court’) titled as “Ram Gopal Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors.”, where by the appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and upheld the judgment and decree dated 13.08.1986 passed by Mansif and Judicial Magistrate, Bari (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.91/75, whereby the trial court partly decreed the plaintiff’s suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants in which it was mentioned that plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 and 4 Nemichand and Jawala Prasad respectively were having joint ownership of a property comprising of a house, shop and chowk. They are in possession of these properties from the time of their ancestors. House of the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 was situated towards the southern side of the chowk. They broke open the wall and in May, 1973 got constructed a window-cum-door and on 25.08.1974, they constructed a complete door. They also threatened to close Parnalas belonging to the plaintiff situated in the shop which open towards the southern side. By way of suit, the plaintiff prayed to close the door (D-2) and to restrain the defendants from taking out the drain at place ‘Z’. During the pendency of the suit, defendants also constructed four ventilators and five drains which should be required to be closed. 3. The defendants filed the written statement before the trial court and denied the averments made in the suit and mentioned that the said chowk did not belong to the plaintiff. It is a public property. The disputed door is in existence since beginning and they were having a thorough passage from the said chowk. They also mentioned that two houses were interconnected. During the pendency of the suit, drains were not been taken out. They also mentioned that ventilators did not breach any privacy of the plaintiff. 4. The trial court on the basis of pleadings, framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the disputed chowk is in the joint ownership of the plaintiff and proforma defendants? (2). Whether plaintiff correctly mentioned the boundaries of the disputed property? They also mentioned that ventilators did not breach any privacy of the plaintiff. 4. The trial court on the basis of pleadings, framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the disputed chowk is in the joint ownership of the plaintiff and proforma defendants? (2). Whether plaintiff correctly mentioned the boundaries of the disputed property? (3). Whether the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 5 were having a right of easement for ingress and egress from the disputed chowk and to carry out drains? (4). Whether the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 5 had wrongly constructed a door D-2 in the purported chowk in May, 1973? (5) Relief? (6) Whether during the pendency of the suit, the defendants expanded the door D-2 by 4’ 6” X 5’ 6” height and put a chajja over it upto the size of 4’ 7” for which the plaintiff has right to close it? 5. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 13.08.1986 partly decreed the suit to the effect that the defendants will not open a drain at place ‘z’ and also will close the incomplete drain and parnalas opened towards chowk. However, under Section 22 of the Indian Easement Act, it was directed that the plaintiff could get ventilators closed by constructing a wall. Aggrieved with the said judgment and decree dated 13.08.1986, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 23.03.1995 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and upheld the judgment and decree dated 13.08.1986 passed by the trial court. 6. By way of this second appeal, the plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree dated 13.08.1986 passed by the appellate court. 7. This court on 06.05.2014 has framed the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the courts below committed an error of law in appreciating the evidence on record and in recording the perverse findings against the appellant plaintiff in respect of the easementary rights of the plaintiff with regard to the disputed chowk?” 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial court as well as the appellate court decided the issue No.1 regarding owner-ship of chowk. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial court as well as the appellate court decided the issue No.1 regarding owner-ship of chowk. The defendants never claimed easementary right by prescription or easement by necessity in the chowk as it belongs to the plaintiff but the trial court as well as appellate court committed an error by not decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the defendants did not claim any easementary right. So, there was no necessity to adjudicate the easementary right because there was no pleading of the parties for easement. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the property in question belongs to the plaintiff and the disputed chowk is a public property. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the trial court committed serious error in not giving any finding regarding closing the ventilators because on account of these ventilators, privacy of the plaintiff was breached. The trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 13.08.1986 gave a direction to the plaintiff to raise a wall in front of these ventilators. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the trial court also committed en error in not decreeing the suit regarding parnalas situated towards the southern side in the shop of the plaintiff. So, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the courts below be set-aside. 9. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that the trial court rightly partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to prove his case and evidence of the plaintiff was inconsistent. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned judgment and decree passed by the courts below. 11. The trial court as well as the appellate court elaborately discussed the evidence of the parties. 10. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned judgment and decree passed by the courts below. 11. The trial court as well as the appellate court elaborately discussed the evidence of the parties. The trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 13.08.1986 rightly decided the suit filed by the plaintiff and the appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 23.03.1995 also rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The defendants had right to use the disputed chowk by ingress and egress. The trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the defendants had not raised any door and parnalas etc and they are in existence since long. Looking to the privacy of the plaintiff, the trial court directed the plaintiff to raise a wall in front of ventilators, if need arises. So, in my considered opinion, the present second appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed.