ownership over the area of gully in question. Secondly, both courts have concurrently found that there exists 8 feet wide gully between houses of both parties. As per the site report of the Commissioner, the use of the gully by the plaintiff, having its windows, ventilators, gate, nala and parnala etc. have been noticed. This gully is situated between houses of both parties and obviously, the same has been left for common use by both parties though not for the public at large as a public lane. The claim of defendant to use the gully in question exclusively and seeking prohibitory injunction against the plaintiff for opening his gate, windows, ventilator, nalla & parnala in this gully as well as seeking permission to raise construction adjoining to the plaintiff’s western wall, has rightly been declined by both courts. The finding of fact recorded in relation to the existence of the gully by both courts is based on due appreciation of the evidence of both parties. Learned counsel for appellant-defendants could not point out any perversity or jurisdictional error or that the fact findings are based on misreading/non-reading of evidence or based on any inadmissible peace of evidence. Therefore, on the basis of such fact findings, no substantial question of law arises in the second appeal preferred by the defendant. 21. As far as, the Civil Second Appeal preferred by the appellantplaintiff, is concerned, neither in the pleadings of plaint nor in supportive documents, produced by plaintiff, the details of the encroachment/construction alleged to be raised by the defendant in northern side of the gully in question, is mentioned. Mere reference in the plaint that by putting two pillars, a gate has been affixed and the gully has been closed, have not been substantiated by any evidence. In counter to that, it has come on record that
