JUDGMENT :

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.

1. This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14.1.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dholpur (for short ‘the learned appellate court’) in Civil Appeal no. (CAR) 10/2014 whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the judgment dated 14.10.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 1, Dholpur (for short ‘the learned trial court’) partly decreeing the Civil Suit no. 44/2009 filed by the respondent no. 1/plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the respondent no. 2/defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) has been upheld.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction stating therein that towards western side of his ancestral house situated in Churiman Ki Bagichi, Kayasthpara, Dholpur, house of the defendant exists. It was averred that there is a chabutara (platform) marked as ‘ABCD’ in the site plan annexed with the plaint under his ownership and possession which was being used by him since long. Alleging that the defendant has threatened him to open his door, window, ventilation and drainage towards his platform, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for.

3. The defendant in his written statement claimed his ownership and possession over the subject property.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed three issues. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial court held that the plaintiff could not establish his ownership over the subject property; but, while deciding the issue no. 2 in his favour, the decree of permanent injunction was passed. The judgment and decree dated 14.10.2011 was assailed by the present appellant, purchaser of the house of the defendant through registered sale deed during pendency of the suit, which has been dismissed by the learned appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 14.1.2015.

5. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned courts did not appreciate that the plaintiff could not establish his possession over the subject platform. He submitted that from the evidence on record, it was established that the subject property is only way available to him to have access to his residential house. He, therefore, prays that the civil suit be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 14.1.2015 be quashed and set aside and the suit be dismissed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that there is a concurrent findings of fact with regard to his possession over the property and its use which warrants no interference. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the second appeal.

7. Heard. Considered.

8. While deciding the issues no. 1 and 2, the learned trial court has held, on the basis of evidence on record, that window of the residential house of the plaintiff has its opening towards the subject platform which was admitted by the defendant also during the course of cross examination. It was observed that the defendant and his witness have admitted during their deposition as DW1 and DW2 respectively that ‘dasa’ of the subject chabutara was also laid down by the plaintiff. The learned trial court has further held that defendant’s witness DW2 has admitted the area of the house of the plaintiff as claimed in the plaint and shown in the map annexed therewith, is possible only if the subject platform is treated to be part of property of plaintiff. These findings have been affirmed and upheld by the learned appellate court while re-appreciating the evidence on record. On examination of the record, this Court concurs with the findings so recorded by the learned trial court. These concurrent findings of facts could not be shown by the learned counsel for the appellant to be suffering from any illegality, infirmity or perversity so as to warrant interference of this Court under Section 100 CPC.

9. In view thereof, this civil second appea