JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi, dated 16-3-1974. A decree was passed in favour of Vaney Chand (since then dead) on 24-10-1938 in appeal by the Judicial Superintendent, Sojat for possession of a Nohra. It was also directed that the decree-holder shall pay Rs. 63/- to the judgment-debtor who had paid that amount towards the price of the Nohara. When the decree was executed an order was passed on August 16, 1941 for delivery of possession of the property but some confusion arose regarding the identity of the Nohra on spot. Upon further appeal, the Chief Court of Jodhpur by its order dated 15-5-1942 directed that the decree-holder is entitled to have his for possession executed on the basis of his plan Ex P 5 as held by the courts below. Possession has yet to be delivered to the decree-holder. If the decree is execute I in contravention of Ex P. 5, the judgment-debtor will have an opportunity of fighting out this point in due course of law. 2. In spite of these clear directions, the litigation continued and the decree-holder is still waiting to get possession of the property. It appears that one Shri Dalichand was appointed the Commissioner to give possession of the property. He reported on 2-2-1963 that it was not possible to do so. This report of the Commissioner was rejected and another. Commissioner Shri Sultanmal was appointed. He measured the whole area in question and drew a map of the portion of which possession was to be delivered. The last order of the executing court is dated 5-6-1971, by which the learned Munsiff disposed of a number of objections raised by the judgment debtor and ultimately, directed that the Commissioner, Shri Sultanmal will proceed to the spot to deliver possession of Nohra as per Ex P 5 and as per his report dated 19-9-70. He further directed that the decree-holder or his representative will keep the material ready to raise walls at the time of the delivery of the possession of the Nohra and Commissioner should should see to it that the walls are raised at the spot in his presence an a memorandum should be prepared to show that the physical possession was actually delivered at the site. This case is bound to be lingered on again by the judgment debtor and hence the judgment- debtor is bound down not to disturb that temporary dotted brick lines got raised by the Commissioner, unless otherwise directed by the higher courts. He should maintain status quo at the site till further orders and any disturbance of the position in the site will attract penal consequences. 3. Against this direction, the judgment-debtor Tara Chand as apprehended by the learned Munsiff again preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi, by his impugned order. The learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi, directed the parties to appear before the learned Mvnsif, Bali on 25th, March, 1974. The executing court was directed to appoint Shri Sultanmal as the Commissioner for handing over the possession to the decree-holder by constructing a wall on the dotted lines shown in the site plan prepared by the Commissioner which is at page A 201/6 of the file. The Commissioner shall complete the work within 7 days. 4. But the judgment-debtor still remained recalcitrant and preferred the present appeal. Before I proceed further to deal with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. I would like to say that the site plan Ex P 5 has clearly stated that the portion bounded in red shall belong to the plaintiff (decree-holder). This plan further clearly shows that on the north, south and west of the Nohra, there are `pucca' built houses. While on the east there is a `Gali'. Thus, the property in dispute having fixed boundaries, there should be and should have been no difficulty in locating its situs. The judgment-debtor was able to present a problem because on the north-eastern corner of the Nohra, there was a house of one Galla Choudhary which was purchased by the defendant, but which has since then fallen down and the line dividing the Nohra and the house of Galla Choudhary has disappeared. If the defendant had cared to file the sale-deed which could give the area and the boundaries of the property of Galla Choudhary or even if the judgment- debtor had come out with a definite case as to the area which he thinks, is recovered by the decree, then too, all problems could be resolved in an easy manner. If the defendant had cared to file the sale-deed which could give the area and the boundaries of the property of Galla Choudhary or even if the judgment- debtor had come out with a definite case as to the area which he thinks, is recovered by the decree, then too, all problems could be resolved in an easy manner. But that was not to be because the judgment debtor was determined to resist the decree as long as he could by resort to such devious and dilatory litigation as law could allow him to do. The learned Additional District Judge, held that besides the fixed points on all directions (except the north-eastern) the dimensions of the Nohra are also available in the plan Ex P 5. The Nohra has a `pol' which is 25ft. x 14ft followed by a chowk which is 30ft 42ft. Then, the measurements of the Pankshala and other instructions which stand on the northern side are also available. The total measurement according to the site plan of the Nohra is 60ft from north to south and 30ft from east to west. The Commissioner therefore, prepared a site plan strictly in accordance with Ex P 5 an was successful in demarcating the western boundary of the fallen house which had at one time belonged to Gella Choudhary and in possession of the judgment debtor. The courts below therefore, were absolutely correct in holding that the decree holder was entitled to the possession of the property as demarcated by the Commissioner, Shri Sultanmato, in the map which is available in the file as aforesaid. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the decree was a conditional decree and therefore could not be executed unless the decree holder carried out his part of the decree. He maintained that the decree could not be executed unless Rs. 63/-, were paid by the decree-holder to the judgment debtor. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents drew my attention to Order 21, Rule 19 CPC and submitted that when application for execution of a decree is made and two parties are entitled to recover sums of money from each other, then if the two sums are unequal, execution may be taken out only by the party entitled to larger sum are for so much only as remains after deducting the smaller sum. 'He further objected that the point is not available to the judgment-debtor, the same having not been raised in the past. The principles of res judicata applies to such a case. Moreover, a perusal of the execution application filed by the decree-holder shows that he had adjusted Rs. 56, Annas 12 I uphold the contention of the decree-holder and reject the objections of the judgement-debtor. The argument of the judgment-debtor that the other decrees were independent decree and could not be adjusted against the decree in question is very species one. All the decrees of costs and other sums have come into existence only as a consequence of the decree dated 24-10-1938. 7. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that under O.26, R 9 CPC the Commissioner is appointed for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute and is not permitted to determine 'the 'rights of the parties. What the Commissioner Sultanmal has done is not any elucidation of the matter in dispute, but has exceeded his authority by deciding which portion belonged to which party. These arguments are,wholly against the record. The Commissioner has done nothing but to elucidate the site plan Ex P 5 in order to restore the boundary line between, the Nohra and house of Galla Choudhary which by passage of time had broken down and for which the judgement debtor alone is to blame. The learned counsel for the respondents is correct in his submission that the Commissioner has done nothing but to abide by the direction given, to him, by the executing court in order to identify the property. 8. The last submission of the learned counsel the appellant is that the executing court has overstepped the decree. One of the boundaries shown in Ex P 5 which divides Galla Choudhary's house from the Nohra is no more available and the measurement given by the Commissioner do also not tally with Ex P 5 and therefore, the court cannot direct determination of the boundaries arbitrarily and further direct possession thereof. It is true that there is a difference of foot or two because according to Ex P 5, the length from North to South is 60ft., while the Commissioner has calculated it to be at 58ft. It is true that there is a difference of foot or two because according to Ex P 5, the length from North to South is 60ft., while the Commissioner has calculated it to be at 58ft. That should not cause much concern because the points both on the north and south are fixed by pucca built houses of the other parties and the Nohra certainly lies between those houses. There is bound to be some difference in measurements on account of passage of time & also all account of the fact that the measurements in Ex P 5 are mentioned in Ex. P. 5 are mentioned in terms of yards which were at that time roughly equal to 2 ft. I, therefore, kind no force in the third contention also. 9. All the contentions are hereby rejected. The appeal is dismissed with costs and the directions of the court below with regard to the property and possession are hereby maintained. I hope and trust that the executing court will expeditiously proceed with the execution of the decree and terminate this vexatiously long litigation.Appeal dismissed. *******