JUDGMENT A.N. DIKSHITA, J. 1. THIS appeal arises against the judgment and decree dated 10-7-75 dismissing the Civil Appeal no. 118 of 1973. 2. FACTS of the case, in narrow compass are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant appellant from causing any interference in raising disputed walls and also from causing any interference in the possession of the plaintiff respondents over the land in dispute. However, in case of dispossession by the defendant-appellants the plaintiffs have sought the relief of possession also. The plaintiffs filed the suit on the allegations that the house of the plaintiff-respondents is on the ancestral land. The Nabdan of this house flows towards north. In the north of the disputed land exists the field of the plaintiffs. Due to rains part of the northern wall had fallen which was subsequently reconstructed. Defendant-appellants no. 1 and 3 contested the suit alleging that the plaintiff-respondents are not the owners of the land in question and maintaining that they are the owners of the house in terms of the compromise filed in suit no. 2425 of 1946. The disputed land is the part of plot no. 498 and the house of the plaintiff-respondents does not find any mention. 3. NECESSARY issues were framed by the trial court. The trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff respondent no. 1 is the owner of the disputed wall. The suit was decreed to the extent that the defendant-appellants were directed to deliver possession of the wall in question and they were further restrained from causing any obstruction in the flow of the Nali. 4. AGGRIEVED the defendant-appellants preferred an appeal. The appeal failed and was dismissed. Heard counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellants, Sri S. K. Verma, has submitted that the courts below erred in arriving at a conclusion which otherwise was not supported by any evidence. 5. EMPHASIS has been laid that counsel for the plaintiff respondents stated under Order X Rule 2 CPC that the suit is not maintainable and no relief of possession could be granted as it was not asked for. I find no merit in this submission. If any statement under Order X Rule 2 CPC was made by the counsel for the plaintiffs, it does not imply that it cannot be corrected. I find no merit in this submission. If any statement under Order X Rule 2 CPC was made by the counsel for the plaintiffs, it does not imply that it cannot be corrected. Learned counsel for the appellants then submitted that there is no evidence on record to prove that the disputed wall was being constructed on the old site. Both the Courts below have given finding of fact that the wall deserves to be demolished. It is very difficult to interfere with such finding of fact. 6. IN any case no legal error arises in this appeal nor does it raise any substantial question of law. This appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed with costs throughout. Appeal dismissed.