JUDGMENT B.D. Agrawal, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. It appears that during the pendency of this second appeal Ram Kishan plaintiff-respondent, has executed transfer in favour of the applicants in respect of a part of the land in dispute. For the applicants transferees-it is contended that they be impleaded as parties to the appeal in order that they may contest the alleged compromise said to have been entered into by Ram Kishan and also put forward other contentions for opposition to the appeal filed at the instance of Shugan Chand, defendant-appellant. The land in respect of which the transfer has been made is directly and specifically in dispute in the suit giving rise to this appeal. The transfer alleged by the applicants has been executed during the pendency of this appeal and in view of the provisions contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act it does not appear necessary, in my view, that the applicants be also impleaded as respondents to this appeal. In case the applicants maintain that Ram Kishan is acting in collusion with the defendant appellant, it remains open to them to litigate the same separately. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, it would further appear, there was an application made under Order 23, Rule 3 (1) C.P.C. from the side of the defendant appellant that Ram Kishan, plaintiff-respondent, has entered into a compromise. This application is dated March 5, 1981 and it was filed in this Court on May 13, 1981. This is being opposed by Ram Kishan, respondent, who maintains that no such compromise has been entered into by him. The validity of the compromise is also in question. According to the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23 C.P.C. where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other, as in the instant case, that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question. It is proper that before the legal aspect of the matter, namely, the question in relation to the effect of the alleged compromise in the light especially of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, is gone into, the factual aspect is clear, namely, as to whether there was or was not such a compromise entered into between the parties concerned. Since this matter requires as well cross-examination of the parties concerned or other witnesses, who maybe examined in this behalf and as affidavits have been filed on both sides, it seems proper that this matter be remitted to the lower appellate court for a finding being specifically recorded. 4. Accordingly, the lower appellate court is directed to record a findings within two months from the date of the receipt of the record as to whether the compromise dated March 5, 1981 and filed in this Court on May 13, 1981 was entered into between the parties concerned. Parties to the appeal will be at liberty to adduce evidence as is relevant in this respect.