1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.892 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12792 OF 2009 Sudhakar Dhondiba Mathe ..Appellant V/s Mandodharibai Sheshrao Kadam and others. ..Respondent ------------------------------------------------------ Mr.V.I.Thole, Advocate for appellant. ------------------------------------------------------ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 14th December, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel. 2. There are concurrent findings of Courts below. The appellant is the original defendant. The respondents are the daughters of deceased Kundlik Mathe. They filed suit for possession of agricultural lands along with mesne profit. 3. There is no dispute about the fact that the suit 2 land was originally owned by said Shri.Kundlik Mathe. It was the case of the present appellant (defendant) that he purchased the said land on basis of one Isar Pawati from the said Shri.Kundlik prior to about 10 to 12 years. He also contended that there was a compromise between himself and said Kundlik Mathe in the proceedings before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Pathri, and thereafter, 81 Ares land sold to him. The suit was decreed. The appeal also came to be dismissed by the First Appellate Court. 4. On behalf of appellant, it is submitted that the effect of the compromise in the revenue proceedings is not properly appreciated by the Courts below and it is the substantial question of law. 5. It is important to note that the appellant did not give any specific date of any so called agreement of sale nor produced the same. It is observed by both the Courts below that the so called Isar Pawati was not filed by the appellant. The alleged compromise in the revenue proceedings can not amount to transfer of ownership within the meaning of 3 section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Both the Courts have evaluated the record in proper prospective. The findings of facts do not call for any interference. The appeal is dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application No.12792/2009 do not survive and hence stands dismissed accordingly. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE GAS/sa892.09