JUDGMENT S. Mubarak Hasan, M. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated September 9, 1968 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur, in appeal against the judgment and decree dated February 29, 1968 passed by S.D.O., Domariaganj, District Basti in a case under section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. Rajendra Bahadur Verma, plaintiff filed suit under section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act alleging that defendant No. 1 Ram Dhani who was co-Bhumidhar of the land in suit along with defendant No. 2 Ragho transferred his half share (plaintiff's) favour 8 years ago in lieu of Rs. 1,000/- and delivered possession to him. He claimed to have become co-Bhumidhar of the land in suit along with defendant No. 2 Ragho under section 164 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. It was further alleged that a compromise decree regarding the land in dispute was also passed in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff prayed for a declaration that he was co-Bhumidhar of the land in suit along with defendant No. 2 Ragho. the claim of the plaintiff was denied by defendant No. 2 in toto and it was pleaded that no sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff nor possession was delivered to him. It was also pleaded that the alleged transfer made by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff was invalid and not binding on defendant No. 2. It was further pleaded that the ex parte decree dated July 16, 1966 was set aside on July 14, 1967 and it does not exist. 3. On February 29, 1968, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 4. On September 9, 1968, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal. 5. Firstly, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that a compromise decree dated July 16, 1966 was passed in plaintiff's favour and that decree still stands. He contended that a consent decree is as binding upon the parties thereto as a decree passed by invitum. He placed reliance on the case Shanker Sitaram Sontakee and another v. Balkrishna sitaram Sontakee and others A.I.R. 1954 (S.C.) 352 in which it was held that:- "A consent decree is as binding upon the parties thereto as decree passed by invitum". He placed reliance on the case Shanker Sitaram Sontakee and another v. Balkrishna sitaram Sontakee and others A.I.R. 1954 (S.C.) 352 in which it was held that:- "A consent decree is as binding upon the parties thereto as decree passed by invitum". He also placed reliance on the case Sailendra Narayan Bhanja Deo v. State of Orissa A.I.R. 1956 (S.C.) 348 in which it was held that:- "A judgment by consent or default is as effective an estoppel between the parties as a judgment whereby the court exercises its mind on a contested case." He further argued that Ragho, defendant No. 2, should not have any grievance because his share is not claimed by the plaintiff nor it is affected in any manner. Secondly, he argued that the document Ex. Ka 1 is virtually a sale deed in view of the provision contained under section 164 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that Ram Dhani, defendant No. 1 filed admission and on that basis decree dated July 16, 1966 was passed. He further argued that decree was ex parte against Ragho, defendant No. 2. He further argued that the decree dated July 16, 1966 being ex parte against Rasho defendant, he (Ragho) applied for setting aside in its entirely by S.D.O., Dumariaganj vide order dated July 14, 1967. He further argued that the ex parte decree being one and indivisible it was rightly set aside in toto on the application of Ragho defendant alone. He contended that decree does not exist now. He placed reliance on the case Baljit Singh and another v. Munnu Lal others A.I.R. 1959 Alld. 251 in which it was held that:- "Order 9, Rule 13 provides for the setting aside of a decree against those defendants also who do not make an application for the setting aside of the decree if it appears that the decree is one and indivisible and cannot be set aside against one particular defendant". He further argued that the ex parte decree having been set aside, Ragho defendant No. 2, was legally entitled to contest the whole suit. He also argued that the property worth more than Rs. 1,000/- is alleged to have been transferred but the document Ex. Ka 1 is neither stamped nor registered. He further argued that the plaintiff neither examined himself nor any other witness to prove it. He also argued that the property worth more than Rs. 1,000/- is alleged to have been transferred but the document Ex. Ka 1 is neither stamped nor registered. He further argued that the plaintiff neither examined himself nor any other witness to prove it. He contended that this document is for all practical purposes useless. He also argued that both courts below have given concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiff did not obtain possession. He contended that, under the circumstances, section 164 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act is not attracted and the document Ex. Ka 1 cannot be deemed to be a sale. Lastly, he argued that the plaintiff has no legs to stand upon and the courts below rightly dismissed the suit. 7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels of the parties and have perused the record. The suit was formerly decreed on July 16, 1966 on the basis of admission of Ram Dhani, defendant No. 1 and ex parte against Ragho, defendant No. 2. Ragho applied for setting aside the ex parte decree dated July 16, 1966. The decree being one and indivisible it was rightly set aside in its entirely on July 14, 1967. Thus the compromise decree ceased to exist. The rulings cited by the learned counsel for the appellant do not, under the circumstances, have any application to this case. After the ex parte decree had been set aside, Ragho defendant No. 2 was entitled to contest the entire suit. Admission by Ram Dhani defendant could not be binding n the co-defendant Ragho. The plaintiff placed reliance on a document Ex. Ka 1 dated February 25, 1958 which is alleged to have been executed by Ram Dhani defendant No. 1. Neither the plaintiff examined himself nor did he produce any witness to prove Ex. Ka 1. Property worth more than Rs. 1,000/- is alleged to have been transferred but the document is neither stamped nor registered. It is not admissible in evidence. Moreover defendant No. 1 does not admit the document now. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiff did not obtain possession. The finding of fact recorded by the lower appellate court in this regard cannot be assailed. The plaintiff having failed to obtain possession, section 164 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was not attracted. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiff did not obtain possession. The finding of fact recorded by the lower appellate court in this regard cannot be assailed. The plaintiff having failed to obtain possession, section 164 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was not attracted. The plaintiff failed to acquire any right or title in the land in dispute on the basis of document Ex Ka 1. He has no legs to stand upon. Both the courts below rightly dismissed the plaintiff suit. The judgment of the lower appellate court dismissing the appeal is correct and does not call for any interference. Appeal has no force. It is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.