JUDGMENT D.S. Sharma, Member - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4.1.78 passed by Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division upholding the judgment and decree of the trial court in a case under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has pressed the second appeal only on two points. Firstly that the plaintiff respondent no. 1 had not claimed any compensation in regard to tube well located in the land in dispute and hence both the trial court and the lower appellate court have erred in allowing the compensation to the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 and secondly, that the question of compensation in respect of a tube well cannot be decided by a revenue court in a suit of partition. In this context, he has cited the case Laxmi Chand v. Mukhram, 1973 R.D. 144. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the facts of the case cited by the learned counsel for the appellant do not apply to this case. The trial court and the lower appellate court have awarded the compensation after considering all the relevant facts as put forth by the parties and there is no justification for looking into this question second appeal now. 5. I have gone through the case cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. The Board has rightly held that it is not possible for a court in proceeding for division of holdings to work out the compensation of trees and other improvements and then award proportionate share to the party deprived of its requisite share as a result of division of holding. Matters of this nature can be decided only on the agreement of the parties or adjudication in this regard and it is not possible to enter into any dispute with regard to such matters in the court of second appeal. While agreeing with these observations. I should like to point out that the question of compensation was raised in the written statement of the respondents and the learned trial court had gone into this question and passed certain orders. While agreeing with these observations. I should like to point out that the question of compensation was raised in the written statement of the respondents and the learned trial court had gone into this question and passed certain orders. The question of compensation was raised in the first appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner who examined this question in great details and after considering various aspects of the question ordered that the cost of tubewell should be shared equally by all the three persons involved in the partition case. Technically it may be correct to say that the plaintiff had not claimed for any such compensation but if the court after the proper consideration and adjudication of this matter, has given some finding based on facts it cannot be questioned in second appeal. 6. Both the parties have no objection in regard to division of holding and assignment of the qurras. Considering this facts and the fact that no material irregularity or illegality has been pointed out in the judgment and order of the learned lower appellate court, I see no justification for allowing the second appeal The second appeal is therefore, rejected.