Shivlal Vs. Sukhdev Singh

civil procedure code, 1908 - section 100--second appeal--suit for injunction--plaintiff respondent stating that appellant encroached upon land of public way and raised a platform and latrine over the said land--courts below came to conclusion that land in dispute is public way and appellant failed to prove the constructed platform and latrine within his pattasud land--defendant appellant failed to prove title over suit property and plaintiff proved the land as of way--held, high court would not interfere with findings of courts below--appeal dismissed. - - 4. two courts below concurrently held that the land in dispute is land of public way and the appellant failed to prove the constructed platform and latrine within his pattasud land despite the fact that the appellant's positive case was that the construction which he raised in recent past was within the pattasud area of the house of the appellant. 5. it appears from the facts of the case that two courts below considered the facts of the case in the light of oral as well as documentary evidence and thereafter reached to the conclusion that the defendant failed to prove his title over the suit property and the plaintiff proved the land as of way.prakash tatia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the appellant/defendant is aggrieved against the findings of fact recorded by two courts below in the judgments dated 24.9.2001 and 24.7.2006 passed by the trial court and first appellate court respectively.3. brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed suit for injunction against the defendant/appellant alleging that the appellant encroached upon the land of lane measuring 2.9 feet to 1.9 feet x 18 feet of public way and raise a platform and latrine over the said encroached land causing nuisance for the plaintiff.4. two courts below concurrently held that the land in dispute is land of public way and the appellant failed to prove the constructed platform and latrine within his pattasud land despite the fact that the appellant's positive case was that the construction which he raised in recent past was within the pattasud area of the house of the appellant.5. it appears from the facts of the case that two courts below considered the facts of the case in the light of oral as well as documentary evidence and thereafter reached to the conclusion that the defendant failed to prove his title over the suit property and the plaintiff proved the land as of way. i do not find any illegality in the impugned judgments.6. in view of the above, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. accordingly, this appeal, having no merit, is hereby dismissed.