JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal against judgment and decree dated February 4, 1980 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, rejecting appeal No. 24 of 1978-79/Mainprui confirming judgment and final decree dated April 18, 1978 passed by S.D.O. altering lots dated May 24, 1978 prepared by Lekhpal. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 3. Mr. Moziz Abbas learned counsel for the respondent was absent on January 19, 1984 and it was ordered that the appeal shall be heard ex parte against respondent but on subsequent dates he had been present and it was argued that as the appeal was not decided ex parte no application was needed under Order XLI Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Code for setting aside order to proceed ex parte. The learned counsel for the appellant conceded to it, hence learned counsel for both the parties have been heard. 4. It has been argued that regarding plot No 139 there was civil litigation and by compromise in it on January 31, 1978 it was agreed between the parties that in plot No. 139 western portion in which tube-well of the plaintiff exists shall go to the share of the plaintiff, therefore, it is binding on the parties and the courts below in altering the lots prepared by the Lekhpal according to that compromise acted illegally. Reliance has been placed on AIR 1974 Alld. 175, 1982 A.L.J.1439, A.I.R. 1967 Alld. 212, 1981 R.D. 251, AIR 1929 Cal. 553, AIR 1982 Patna 300 and 1971 R.D. 306. 5. It has been argued in reply that the revenue court has got no jurisdiction to decide the ownership of the tube-well and that the tube-well and the trees were divided between the parties who had half share each and rules 157 and 127 to 131 were complied with, therefore, the concurrent finding of both the courts below should not be interfered with. 6. The compromise between the parties or family settlement between the parties in from of compromise in previous litigation although that court had no jurisdiction for division suit of agricultural land is binding on the parties and it should be acted upon as far as possible in case of allotments at the time of preparation of lots and final decree. 6. The compromise between the parties or family settlement between the parties in from of compromise in previous litigation although that court had no jurisdiction for division suit of agricultural land is binding on the parties and it should be acted upon as far as possible in case of allotments at the time of preparation of lots and final decree. Reliance can be placed in this respect on of Bhagwan singh v.Smt. Shanti Devi, 1984 R.D. 3, Sri Ram v. Girdhari Lal and others, 1982 Alld 1419 and Jokhan v. Ram Deo, AIR 1967 Alld. 212. 7. In the present case by compromise the civil court dated January 31, 1978 the plaintiff and defendant agreed that western portion of plot No. 189 will go to the the plaintiff-Appellant and western portion of the plot will go the defendant-respondent who had allowed working of brick-kiln in this portion. The Lekhpal had prepared lots according to that compromise; that compromise should have been honoured by the trial court instead of ordering amendment in lots for this plot prepared by the Lekhpal on the basis of the compromise. The defendant in his portion got brick-kiln worked and naturally after the work of brick-kiln was over its utility had diminished and the defendant was estopped from changing the allotment of the basis of that compromise, his objection ought to have been rejected. 8. That compromise further proves the possession of the parties in plot No. 189 according to the compromise, therefore, as rule 131(a) requires that allotment should be made as far as possible according to the possession of the parties that rule was also not adhered. The attitude of the learned lower appellate court feeling helpless as the learned counsel for the parties could not find out any solution. The solution was already found out by the parties by the said compromise and nothing remained to be solved. The possession of the parties is to be adhered as far as possible is well settled principle of law and is incorporated in the said rules and has been held to be followed in Sonai v. Mohal, 1971 R.D. 306. 9. The principle that the party who makes improvement in joint land normally should be allowed to enjoy its benefit. The possession of the parties is to be adhered as far as possible is well settled principle of law and is incorporated in the said rules and has been held to be followed in Sonai v. Mohal, 1971 R.D. 306. 9. The principle that the party who makes improvement in joint land normally should be allowed to enjoy its benefit. If its corollary enjoins that the party who is responsible for making the utility of land diminish should bear that burden as is the case at present as the defendant who got in his portion of land brick-kiln worked he must be allotted that portion of land which was done rightly by the Lekhpal by preparing lots of May 25, 1978 according to the compromise. The trial court acted illegally in amending the lots for plot No. 139 in the arbitrary was drawing line of division form the tube-well divide the field into two triangles putting the plaintiff into unnecessary hardship and harassment, therefore this appeal is liable to be allowed. The judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside and the lots prepared by the Lekhpal are liable to be confirmed. 10. In view of the above, this appeal is hereby allowed with costs althrough. The judgment and decree passed by both the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are set aside. The lots and Map prepared by Lakhpal on May 25, 1978 are hereby confirmed. Final decree shall be prepared accordingly.