1 S.A.No.374/10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.374 OF 2010 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 22.12.2010. 1. This is plaintiffs' Second Appeal. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession. The same was dismissed. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal. 2. Mr.Shah, learned counsel for the appellants contended that when the compromise decree was entered into between the parties then the parties were estopped from deviating from the said compromise or contending against terms of the compromise. For the said purpose the learned 2 S.A.No.374/10 counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Sailendra Narayan Bhanja Deo Vs. The State of Orissa" AIR 1956 Supreme Court 346. The learned counsel further contended that the contention of the defendants that subsequent arrangement had taken place after the compromise decree itself appears to be suspicious as the parties are professing Mohammedan religion and they say that the arrangement had taken place at the time of Gudi- padwa. Mr.Shah, learned counsel further contended that the admissions given by the witnesses of the defendants have not been taken into consideration and that the oral evidence could not have prevail over the compromise decree. 3. The factum of compromise decree is not disputed by any of the parties. The contention of the defendants was that as the properties which were allotted to the respective parties in the compromise decree was not compatible. The subsequent arrangement was made and the said subsequent arrangement which was made was 3 S.A.No.374/10 also acted upon. As per the subsequent arrangement, the land which was given to Qasim through whom the present appellants are claiming their rights sold the property allotted to him by subsequent arrangement. The Courts below have also discussed about the area, position of the property which was allotted after the subsequent arrangement. The oral evidence is also supported by the overtacts of Qasim who has sold the property. Once the subsequent arrangement was accepted by Qasim and he has derived benefit from the said arrangement, now his heirs can not turn around and contend that it was only the compromise decree by which the parties would be bound. 4. In light of the above, the Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.22.12.2010. asp/office/sa374.10 4 S.A.No.374/10