R.S.A. No.1979 of 2003 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.1979 of 2003(O&M) Decided on : 10.3.2010 Balbir Singh .... Appellant VERSUS Ram Singh .... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER. Present:- Mr. Jasbir Rattan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate, for the respondent. MAHESH GROVER, J. In view of order dated 4.11.2009, the main appeal has been taken up today for hearing. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The only dispute, which has been raised in the instant appeal by the defendant/appellant is that he is owner of Khasra No.121//39(0-14.) He contends that the respondent filed a suit alleging that he the defendant/appellant, was encroaching upon that area. During the proceedings before the learned Trial Court, learned counsel for the appellant made a statement that he has no concern with Khasra No.121//39 (0-14), which is the area claimed by the respondent. He rather stated that he has only concern with Khasra No.121//40/2(0-9), which belongs to him. In this view of the statement, the suit was decreed and the appellant was restrained from interfering in Khasra No.121//39 (0- 14). The first Appellate Court also affirmed the findings. R.S.A. No.1979 of 2003 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the appellant states that the demarcation, which has been carried out is erroneous and states that this has resulted in prejudice to his case as the appellant will now get area from Khasra No.121//40/2 (0-9) in his possession. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by both the Courts do not warrant any interference. The only relief granted to the plaintiff is on the basis of a statement, which was suffered by the learned counsel for the appellant. He categorically stated that he has no concern with Khasra No.121//39(0-14), which is the suit property and that he is owner in possession of Khasra No.121//40/2(0-9). Having regard to the aforesaid, when the learned counsel for the appellant himself suffered the statement conceding the case of the respondent, I am of the opinion that he cannot be allowed to retract. The plaintiff could not have got anything more than what was prayed for. The decree when executed cannot confer anything more than what terms it stipulates. Hence, the grievance and apprehension of the appellant is misplaced. In any eventuality, this is purely a question of fact, which has been determined by the Courts, which in the given set of circumstances, cannot be erroneous so as to warrant any interference in a Regular Second Appeal. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. All the pending applications are also dismissed in view of above. 10th March, 2010 (MAHESH GROVER) Monika JUDGE