IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.4289 of 2008 Date of Decision : 2.3.2010 Kesar Chand and another ....Appellants Versus Phusa Ram and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.L.N.Verma, Advocate for the appellants. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants/plaintiffs have assailed the findings of both the courts below. They pleaded that they had become owners of suit land measuring 51 kanals 14 marlas by virtue of sale deeds which were executed by Mam Raj and Jessa Ram. The respondents contended that the appellants are only owner in possession of 49 kanals 0 marla and not 51 kanals 14 marlas as alleged by them. Both the Courts below concluded that there were two valid sale deeds in favour of the appellants executed by Mam Raj and Jessa Ram, the owners of the land and also concluded that both these vendors collectively were owners of land measuring 49 kanals 0 marla and therefore they could not have alienated the land more than their share. It was concluded that the appellants are only entitled to 49 kanals 0 marla of land and R.S.A.No.4289 of 2008 -2- not 51 kanals 14 marlas as claimed by them. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the suit has been wrongly dismissed. I am not in agreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The only prayer of the plaintiff-appellants was that they were entitled to 51 kanals 14 marlas of land and that they be declared owners in possession of the same whereas the finding recorded by the courts below is that they could have been only declared owners of 49 kanals 0 marla of land. Even before this Court similar contention has been raised. The interest of the appellants has been safeguarded with the observations of the first Appellate Court where it is recorded that the plaintiffs can only be said to be entitled to 49 kanals of land and not 51 kanals 14 marlas of land. The grievance of the appellants is therefore misplaced because of the aforesaid reasons and observations. The interest of the appellants can only be safeguarded upto the extent which has been established by the courts below by way of concurrent findings. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgments. The appeal is therefore dismissed. 2.3.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss