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. 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.
(3.) 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.;