JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. - In the present writ petition the dispute relates to Khata No. 116 of village Marehha, Pargana Chanda, Tahsil Kadipur, District Sultanpur. In the basic year Khatauni the name of the petitioner Ram Nain Singh son of Bal Krishna Singh was recorded as sole tenure holder of the said holding. An objection was filed by opposite party no. 4 Mahadeo Singh son of Bhawani Bux Singh, since deceased, claiming to be cotenure holder along with the petitioner Ram Nain Singh with the allegation that the land of the said holding is ancestral and joint family property. In the alternative he also claimed Sirdari rights by adverse possession. The petitioner contested the case asserting that he is the sole tenure holder and that the objector Mahadeo Singh is not entitled to get half share in the disputed holding in the capacity as a cotenure holder. It was further asserted that the land of the disputed holding was acquired by his grand father Bindeshwari Singh and on his death it devolved upon his two sons, Anant Prasad and [Bal Krishna Singh. Upon death of his father Bal Krishna Singh, the interest in the holding devolved on the petitioner and in the revenue records the name of the petitioner and Anant Prasad Singh were recorded. The petitioner's uncle Anant Prasad Singh died issueless and the petitioner, thus, became sole tenureholder of the aforesaid disputed holding and his name was recorded as such in the revenue records. It was further asserted that the land in dispute was neither ancestral property nor it was joint family property acquired in the representative capacity by Bindeshwari Singh. Referring to decisions in earlier suits filed by Mahadeo Singh it was asserted that the objector Mahadeo Singh is bound by the decrees passed in the earlier suits and would be estopped from claiming cotenancy rights in the disputed holding. It was stated that Mahadeo Singh had filed Regular Suit No. 229 of 1953 in the Court of Munsif, South, Sultanpur for declaration regarding his half share in the disputed holding. This suit was filed against the petitioner Ram Nain Singh and his uncle Anant Prasad Singh with the allegation that the land in dispute is ancestral and joint family property and the plaintiff has got half share therein. This suit was contested by the petitioner and his uncle denying the plaintiff's alleged claim. This suit was filed against the petitioner Ram Nain Singh and his uncle Anant Prasad Singh with the allegation that the land in dispute is ancestral and joint family property and the plaintiff has got half share therein. This suit was contested by the petitioner and his uncle denying the plaintiff's alleged claim. It, however, ended in compromise between the parties and the suit was decreed in terms of compromise dated 2191953 wherein plaintiff Mahadeo Singh was given life estate over half share in theland in dispute as guzaredar with a further stipulation that after death of plaintiff Mahadeo Singh it will revert to the defendants Ram Nain Singh and his uncle and they will come in possession over it. Mahadeo Singh was not given cotenancy rights in the holding in dispute. Subsequently another suit for partition under Section 176 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short, 'the U. P. Z. A. & L.R. Act') was filed by Mahadeo Singh against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Officer, Kadipur, Sultanpur. This Suit No. 144 of I960 was decreed on 981961 in the terms of decree dated 2191953 passed in aforesaid Regular Suit No. 229 of 1953, which was decided in terms of compromise referred to above. Mahadeo Singh filed yet another suit for partition and separation of his alleged half share in the disputed holding in the court of Munsif, South Sultanpur. It was registered as Suit No. 94 of 1964. This suit was decreed, but it was challenged in appeal filed by Ram Nain Singh and his uncle. This appeal No. 6 of 1965 was decided in terms of compromise dated 1091965 wherein Mahadeo Singh was given life estate as Guzaredar Heenhayati A copy of said compromise is annexed as Annexure No, 1. Subsequently Mahadeo Singh filed yet another Suit No. 1 of 1973 under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in the Court of Judicial Officer, Kadipur, Sultanpur. In this suit he prayed that he be declared as cotenure holder along with the defendant having half share in the land in dispute. This suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 1241972 on the ground that in view of earlier compromise decree dated 091965, the plaintiff would not be entitled to a decree for declaration as prayed by him. This suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 1241972 on the ground that in view of earlier compromise decree dated 091965, the plaintiff would not be entitled to a decree for declaration as prayed by him. It was held that the said decree in earlier suit also operates as res judicata. The petitioner, thus, asserted that in none of the earlier suits the claim of objector Mahadeo Singh regarding cotenancy rights in the land was accepted and he was given only a life estate as Guzaredar in half of the land which was to revert to the petitioner on the death of Mahadeo Singh. In the said compromise decree Mahadeo Singh was given land as Guzaredar and not as cotenure holder and he is bound by the decrees passed in earlier suits. 2. The Consolidation Officer after taking evidence of the parties dismissed the objection filed by Mahadeo, Singh holding that the land of the disputed holding is not ancestral property and that the objector is bound by the decrees referred to above wherein he was given lifeestate as Guzaredar. Aggrieved by said order, Mahadeo Singh preferred appeal which was allowed and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 2971974 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. After remand of the case, the Consolidation Officer allowed the objection filed by Mahadeo Singh vide order dated 2131975 and gave him cotenancy rights to the extent of half share. This order was passed on the alleged statement of the petitioner Ram Nain Singh recorded on 2131975 a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 2A to the counter affidavit. The Consolidation Officer passed a very short nonspeaking order saying that the copy of judgment and compromise decree passed in Civil Suit No. 6 of 1965 was produced before him and the parties have come to a compromise on its basis as per their statements on record. The name of Mahadeo Singh was, thus, ordered to be recorded on the disputed holding with half share therein. Aggrieved by this order, Ram Nain Singh filed appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 3111977 (Annexure No. 7). It was held that on the basis of the compromise decree dated 1091965 in which Mahadeo Singh was given a right of Guzaredar for life, his name cannot be recorded as Asami tenant. Aggrieved by this order, Ram Nain Singh filed appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 3111977 (Annexure No. 7). It was held that on the basis of the compromise decree dated 1091965 in which Mahadeo Singh was given a right of Guzaredar for life, his name cannot be recorded as Asami tenant. It was further held that on the basis of the statement of the petitioner Ram Nain Singh recorded before the Consolidation Officer on 2131975, the name of Mahadeo Singh was rightly recorded as cotenure holder on the disputed holding having half share therein. Aggrieved by these orders. Ram Narain Singh preferred revision which was dismissed vide order dated 21121978 (Annexure No. 8). These orders are challenged in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri L.P. Misra, urged that the opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 misconstrued the aforesaid compromise decree dated 1091965 passed in appeal no. 6 of 1965. Referring to the statement dated 2131975, contained in Annexure No. A2, learned counsel urged that the petitioner in his statement stated that he accepts the compromise filed before the Additional Civil Judge to which parties are bound and according to it half of the land be recorded in the name of Mahadeo and half be recorded in his name. The said statement contained in Annexure No. A2 is extracted hereunder : Ram nain sut Balkrishna nivasi Marchha Umra 40 Saal Ne Bahalaf Bayan Kiya Ki Atirikt Civil Judge Ka Sulahnama Mujhe Manya Hai. Agar Humlog Uske Khilaf Koe Ujurdari Karen To Najayaj Mani Jay. 1/2 Bhag Mahadeo Ke Nam Darj Kiya Jai 1/2 Mera Darj Kiya Jai. Bayan Sunkar Tasdik Kiya. 4. Learned counsel urged that the petitioner in his said statement had asserted that the parties are bound by the compromise entered into between them before the Additional Civil Judge and they cannot resile from it, and as such, according to it the entries be made in the name of Mahadeo Singh. Learned counsel pointed out that in said suit petitioner had not admitted Mahadeo Singh to be cotenure holder in the holding in dispute or that he is entitled to half share in that capacity. The petitioner in his statement had vehemently asserted that the parties cannot resile from the compromise entered before the Additional Civil Judge. Learned counsel pointed out that in said suit petitioner had not admitted Mahadeo Singh to be cotenure holder in the holding in dispute or that he is entitled to half share in that capacity. The petitioner in his statement had vehemently asserted that the parties cannot resile from the compromise entered before the Additional Civil Judge. Learned counsel, thus, urged that opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 have misconstrued the statement of the petitioner while recording the name of Mahadeo Singh as cotenure holder on the land in dispute merely on the basis of said statement. Referring to the compromise decree dated 1091965 filed in appeal No. 6 of 1965 before the Additional Civil Judge, learned counsel urged that in the said compromise Mahadeo Singh was given half of the land only as a Guzaredar for life time. The opposite parties No. 1,2 and 3 have misconstrued the said compromise and wrongly ordered the name of Mahadeo Singh to be recorded as cotenure holder on its basis. It has been pointed out that nowhere in the compromise Mahadeo was accepted to be a cotenure holder in the holding in dispute along with the petitioner. In Para 1 of the compromise it was specifically mentioned that Mahadeo Singh is given half land as Guzaredar and he will remain in possession during his life time and after his death the land will revert in possession of the defendantsappellants Anant Prasad Singh and Ram Nain Singh and they will remain in possession as Sirdars. It was also mentioned that the plaintiff Mahadeo Singh would not be entitled to transfer the land which was given to him, in any manner whatsoever. In para 2 of the compromise it was mentioned that defendants Anant Prasad Singh and Ram Nain Singh are Sirdar tenants of the entire land in suit and the plaintiff would be Guzaredar for life, of half of the land In para 3 of the compromise it was specifically mentioned that the parties for their convenience have divided the land half and half and will remain in possession thereof in accordance with the rights indicated above. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 have erred in directing the name of Mahadeo Singh to be recorded as cotenure holder on the holding in dispute on the basis of said compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 have erred in directing the name of Mahadeo Singh to be recorded as cotenure holder on the holding in dispute on the basis of said compromise. They have misconstrued the compromise and also the statement of the petitioner referred to above. Learned counsel further urged that in earlier litigation Mahadeo Singh had claimed cotenure holder's right which he could not establish and accepted to remain in possession as a Guzaredar having life estate therein. He would, thus, be bound by the compromise decree and would be estopped from claiming rights as a cotenure holder in the disputed holding along with the petitioner. He further urged that the opposite party No. 4, Mahadeo Singh, has also not been able to establish that the land was ancestral and joint family property coming down from the time of common ancestor Ram Gulam Singh. The opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 have, thus, erred in ordering the name of Mahadeo Singh to be recorded as cotenure holder by misconstruing the said compromise decree and the statement of the petitioner. It was, thus, urged that the impugned orders passed by opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 deserve to be quashed being per se wrong and illegal. 5. In reply to the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4, Smt. Jai Raji, the sister of deceased opposite party No. 4 Mahadeo Singh urged that the compromise decree referred to above was per se illegal and void because life estate as Guzaredar could not be created in half share of the disputed holding on the basis of compromise. His contention was that since rights as Guzaredar as a life estate are not contemplated under the provisions of the U.P., Z.A. & L.R. Act and, as such, half share in the land, which came in possession of Mahadeo Singh on the basis of the said compromise decree has got to be construed to have come in the capacity as cotenure holder in the disputed holding along with the petitioner. Learned counsel further urged that the petitioner Ram Nain Singh in his statement dated 2131975 (Annexure No. A2) had accepted that the name of Mahadeo Singh be recorded over half share in the land in dispute although he had deposed that the parties are bound by the compromise filed before the Additional Civil Judge and they cannot resile from it, but according to the compromise, entries could not be made in the revenue records because Guzaredar with life estate is not recognised under the provisions of U.P., Z.A. & L.R. Act nor any such entry can be made in the revenue records under the provisions of Land Records Manual. Thus, when the petitioner had admitted that the name of Mahadeo Singh be recorded over half share in the land, then such a statement was rightly construed to amount as consent for recording the name of Mahadeo Singh as cotenure holder on the holding in dispute having half share therein. Learned counsel, thus, urged that the opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 have committed no error in recording the name of Mahadeo Singh as cotenure holder on the basis of the statement of the petitioner, Ram Nain Siugh, and also on the basis of the compromise decree dated 1091965, which, according to him, cannot be construed in any other manner. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned orders very carefully, and in my opinion the impugned orders cannot be sustained and would deserve to be quashed for reasons indicated hereunder. 7. Firstly, it may be pointed cut that no evidence has been led in the case to indicate that the land in dispute belonged to the common ancestor Ram Gulam Singh nor it was ever recorded in his name. Opposite party No. 4, Mahadeo Singh had filed Regular Suit No. 229 of 1953 in the court of Munsif, South, Sultanpur asserting that the land in suit is ancestral property and he has got half share therein as cotenure holder thereof. The suit was decided vide compromise decree dated 2191953 and the plaintiff was given life estate as Guzaredar in half share of the land in dispute by the defendants which exclusively belonged to them. The entries continued in the name of the defendants in the revenue records as sole tenure holder of the disputed holding. The suit was decided vide compromise decree dated 2191953 and the plaintiff was given life estate as Guzaredar in half share of the land in dispute by the defendants which exclusively belonged to them. The entries continued in the name of the defendants in the revenue records as sole tenure holder of the disputed holding. Mahadeo Singh again filed a suit No. 114 of 1960 for partition under Section 176 asserting that he has got half share in the land in suit, being cotenure holder along with the defendants. This suit was decided on 891961 and it was held that the parties were bound by the compromise decree dated 2191953. No decree for partition was passed in favour of the plaintiff for his alleged half share in the holding in dispute as cotenure holder Mahadeo Singh thereupon filed another Regular Suit No. 94 of 1964 for partition of the holding in dispute, which was decreed, but ultimately in appeal No. 6 of 1965 filed by Anant Prasad Singh and Ram Nain Singh, a compromise was filed and duly verified by the parties on 1091965, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure No. 1. The suit was, thus, decreed in terms of the said compromise by which Mahadeo Singh was given half of the land in dispute as Guzaredar till his life time. The land in dispute was to revert to the defendants on the death of Mahadeo Singh. It was further stipulated in the compromise that Mahadeo Singh will have no right to transfer the land given to him as Guzaredar, in any manner whatsoever. It was specifically mentioned in the compromise that the defendant Anant Prasad Singh and Ram Nain Singh are Sirdars of the entire land in suit and only half of it is given to the plaintiff as Guzaredar for life time The parties, for the sake of convenience in cultivation, had divided the plots half and half subject to the rights enumerated in the compromise. A perusal of this compromise clearly indicates that plaintiff Mahadeo Singh was given half of the land only by way of Guzaredar for his life time. It was also stipulated that he will not be able to transfer the land in any manner whatsoever and it will revert to the defendants on the death of Mahadeo Singh. A perusal of this compromise clearly indicates that plaintiff Mahadeo Singh was given half of the land only by way of Guzaredar for his life time. It was also stipulated that he will not be able to transfer the land in any manner whatsoever and it will revert to the defendants on the death of Mahadeo Singh. The said compromise was duly verified and the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise. The genuineness of the compromise has not been challenged before me nor it has been asserted to be fraudulently obtained or based on misrepresentation, undue influence or coercion. It, therefore, cannot be said to have been vitiated in law. Thus, in my opinion, the patties are bound by the terms of the compromise to which they have entered with their eyes open. Although Mahadeo Singh in his aforesaid suit and also in earlier suits had claimed to be cotenure holder along with the defendants having half share therein, but apparently he gave up his said claim and accepted to come into possession over half of the land in dispute as a Guzaredar having life estate therein. Thus, having once given up that claim which he had set up in his earlier suits, he would be estopped from claiming to be cotenure holder in the disputed holding in the present proceeding. No doubt, the compromise decree would not operate as resjudicata, but the parties would be bound by the terms of the compromise decree and would be estopped from pleading otherwise. 8. It is well settled that the finality of the decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction between the parties on the basis of compromise arrived at between them cannot be allowed to be challenged by any party to it unless it is shown that the compromise was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or coercion. When the parties arrived at a settlement giving up their claim or part of their claim in respect of the property in suit and agreed to receive what is given to them in the compromise, then they cannot resile from it and reapprobate from it by asserting that they would not be bound by it because they never intended to take the property given to them in that capacity and on the terms indicated in the compromise. If the claim which was set up in the plaint or in the written statement was not accepted in the compromise, the same would be taken to have been given up and it cannot be again set up and asserted in a subsequent suit filed in respect of the same property in suit. The conduct of the plaintiffopposite party No, 4 in omitting to press the claim which was setup by him in the earlier aforesaid suits is very significant and having accepted the terms of the compromise after full understanding and express consent, he cannot resile from it and would be bound by the compromise decree, which is not said to have been vitiated on account of fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence. 9 Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4 had, however, urged that the compromise would not be binding on Mahadeo Singh because it was void as no land could be given to Mahadeo Singh by way of Guzaredar. His further contention was that since the land in dispute was a Sirdari holding, and, as such, the petitioner could not give half share to Mahadeo Singh by way of Guzaredar, because that would amount to illegal transfer by a Sirdar of his Sand, and, as such, no such compromise could be legally arrived at between the parties. It was, therefore, to be treated to be void and ineffective being an illegal transfer and the opposite party No. 4 on its basis cannot be treated to be holding the land as a licensee being Guzaredar. His further contention was that since Mahadeo Singh is in possession over half share of the land ever since 1965, and, as such he acquired rights as a cotenure holder on the basis of possession, acquiescence and estoppel or in the alternative, acquired Sirdari rights by adverse possession. I am unable to agree with these contentions. 10. There is no specific provision contained in the U.P., Z.A. & L.R. Act forbidding transfer of possession by a Sirdar of any plot of his holding or any part thereof to any person as a licensee by way of Guzaredar having life estate therein. I am unable to agree with these contentions. 10. There is no specific provision contained in the U.P., Z.A. & L.R. Act forbidding transfer of possession by a Sirdar of any plot of his holding or any part thereof to any person as a licensee by way of Guzaredar having life estate therein. If it be found that such a family settlement or arrangement of giving of certain plots or a share therein by a Sirdar to any person as Guzaredar with life estate would amount to a transfer, the rights of the Sirdar would certainly extinguish under Section 190 (1) (cc) of the U.P., Z.A, & L.R. Act. But if it would not amount to a transfer the Sirdar would not lose his interest in that land and the possession of the Guzaredar would not be treated to be illegal and adverse so as to acquire right hy adverse possession. Further, if giving of some plots or a part thereof to a person as Guzaredar would not amount to illegal transfer, his possession would be nothing else but permissive as a licensee and he would not be vested with any interest in the land by the rule of estoppel or acquiescence or as a sole tenure holder over the land in his possession by prescription because his possession would not be that of a trespasser. In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Raj Kumar Rukmini Raman Bramha (1970 All LJ 1256) it was held that the Guzarenama deed is not a transfer by way of sale or gift within the meaning of Section 23 (1) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and can be recognized for purposes of assessing the amount of Rehabilitation Grant. Although, the said decision was rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the question regarding assessment of rehabilitation grant, but it was held that Guzaranama deed is not a transfer by way of sale or gift. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that where certain land is given by a Sirdar tenure holder to any person to hold and cultivate it as a Guzaredar during his life time, it would not amount to a transfer either by sale or gift. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that where certain land is given by a Sirdar tenure holder to any person to hold and cultivate it as a Guzaredar during his life time, it would not amount to a transfer either by sale or gift. What is prohibited under Section 190 (1) (cc) is that a Sirdar cannot transfer, let out or use in contravention of the provisions of the Act, any holding or part thereof. If any land is transferred, let out or used in contravention of the provisions of the Act by the Sirdar, his interest in such land will extinguish under Section 190 (1) (cc) of the Act. But since giving of any land by a Sirdar to a person by way of Guzaredar would not amount to a transfer, and, as such, the compromise decree will not tantamount to an illegal transfer of the property and will not operate to extinguish his interest in the land under the said provision. 11. In the present case Mahadeo Singh was given half of the land of the disputed holding by the petitioner and his uncle as a Guzaredar for lifetime. It was also mentioned in the compromise that Mahadeo Singh will have no right to transfer the land to anyone else in any manner whatsoever. It is, therefore, evident that Mahadeo Singh was given to cultivate the land as Guzaredar and to remain in its possession during his lifetime and it was to revert to the petitioner on his death. 12. This compromise decree apparently represented a family settlement between the parties. It was, in law, not a transfer of property and Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act would not be applicable to it or govern its terms. The courts would keep the parties to the bargain freely entered into by them and they would be bound by the terms of the decree. Neither the parties to the compromise nor the court can vary the terms of the compromise decree and it would be binding on the parties as it stands. 13. The Guzaredar Hinhiyati' i.e. the person holding land for maintenance for life, holds the land with merely usufructuary rights therein, terminable on the death of the Guzaredar. Neither the parties to the compromise nor the court can vary the terms of the compromise decree and it would be binding on the parties as it stands. 13. The Guzaredar Hinhiyati' i.e. the person holding land for maintenance for life, holds the land with merely usufructuary rights therein, terminable on the death of the Guzaredar. Thus, limited interest in the property cannot mature into absolute owner having full proprietary or tenancy rights on the basis of possession over the property as Guzaredar because 'Guzara' is granted for life and so there can be no adverse possession of a limited interest, which is held as a licensee terminable on the death of grantee, to mature into absolute interest. The very first incident of 'Guzaranama' is that it must be taken prima facie as an estate granted for life to Guzaredar and so his possession cannot be taken to be adverse so as to mature into absolute title as a tenure holder by prescription. In taking this view I am fortified by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raja Rameshwar Rao and another Vs. Raja Govind Rao ( AIR 1961 SC 1442 ) wherein it was held that 'there is no doubt that there can be adverse possession of a limited interest in property as well as of the full title as owner. But in the case of a 'jagir' granted for life there can be no adverse possession of a limited interest in the nature of a permanent lease. 14. Thus, in view of the above, I find that the possession of Mahadeo Singh, being that of 'Guzaredar Hinhiyati', was merely as a licensee terminable on his death and so it cannot be said to be adverse so as to create Sirdari rights in him by prescription nor he can claim to be cotenure holder merely on the ground that he was given half of the land of the disputed holding by way of Guzaredar. The aforesaid compromise could be validly arrived at between the parties by way of family settlement and since no right as cotenure holder were given or recognised by the petitioner, and, as such, it cannot be asserted on behalf of the opposite party No. 4 that the land was given to him in recognition of his preexisting title in the land in dispute. The opposite party No. 4, therefore, cannot claim any title as a cotenure holder in the land of the disputed holding, on the basis of said decree or on the basis of the petitioners' said statement. I have carefully perused the statement of the petitioner contained in Annexure No. A2 and I find that the petitioner had very clearly stated that he admits the compromise which was filed before the Additional Civil Judge and the parties cannot resile from it and so he has no objection in recording the name of Mahadeo Singh over half share in the land in dispute. The statement cannot be read and construed piecemeal but has got to be read and construed as a whole. The said statement in no manner can be construed to be an admission of the petitioner for recording the name of Mahadeo Singh as cotenure holder with the petitioner. The petitioner has very clearly stated that he accepts the compromise and if anything is said against she compromise, the same would be illegal and not acceptable. Thus, by giving consent for recording the name of Mahadeo Singh over half share, the petitioner apparently meant that his name be recorded in terms of the compromise, which as already stated above, was that of a Guzaredar and not as cotenure holder. Thus, in my opinion, the opposite parties No. 1 2 and 3 erred in directing the name of opposite party No. 4 to be recorded as cotenure holder with half share in the disputed holding along with the petitioner by misconstruing the terms of the decree and the statement of the petitioner referred to above. The impugned orders, thus, suffer from apparent manifest error and cannot be sustained. 15. Learned counsel for the opposite party had, however, tried to assail the compromise decree urging that it would not be binding on the opposite party No. 4 as by it a life estate was created in his favour in respect of half share in the land in dispute given to him. Learned counsel urged that since no such life estate could be created in the land by restricting interest of Mahadeo Singh as a Guzaredar, and, as such, the compromise decree would be void and ineffective. Learned counsel urged that since no such life estate could be created in the land by restricting interest of Mahadeo Singh as a Guzaredar, and, as such, the compromise decree would be void and ineffective. His further contention was that although Mahadeo Singh had acquired possession over the land in dispute in execution of the said decree, but his possession cannot be taken to be merely as a licensee being Guzaredar because no such arrangement could be made by a Sirdar tenureholder even by way of family settlement. It was thus, urged that possession of Mahadeo Singh was that of a cotenure holder and on his death it has devolved on his sister Smt. Jai Raja, who has been substituted in the writ petition in place of deceased opposite party No. 4. I am unable to agree with these contentions as well. 16. It is quite evident from the perusal of the compromise decree that Mahadeo Singh was not given half share in the disputed land in his right as cotenure holder with the petitioner in the disputed holding. In Para 11 of the compromise it was expressly mentioned that Ram Nain Singh and Anant Prasad Singh are Sirdar tenants of the entire land in dispute and the plaintiff Mahadeo Singh is given only half of the land by way of 'Guzaredar Hinhiyati' with a further condition added to it that he will be having no right to transfer the land to anyone else in any manner whatsoever. The compromisedecree was got executed & Mahadeo Singh got possession on its basis. He would, therefore, be bound by the terms of the decree and cannot claim different rights and title resiling from the terms of the decree, which cannot be taken to be illegal and void as there appears to be no legal bar to such an arrangement being made by way of family settlement in respect of land of his sirdari holding. It is, thus, evident that no interest in the land in dispute as cotenure holder was created in favour of the opposite party No. 4, Mahadeo Singh, by the said compromise nor his allege right as cotenure holder was admitted and recognised by the defendants. There, thus, arises no question of curtailing full estate into life estate in the land in dispute. There, thus, arises no question of curtailing full estate into life estate in the land in dispute. The rights as a Guzaredar over half share in the land in dispute which was recognised in the said compromise decree cannot legally operate nor it can be construed to create cotenancy rights in the holding in favour of Mahadeo Singh on the basis of the rule of estoppel and acquiescence. The right of Mahadeo Singh under the decree to hold half of the land of the disputed holding in his possession as Guzaredar during his lifetime was to cease on his death and the land was to revert to the defendant petitioner. Mahadeo Singh had, therefore, no right as a tenureholder which could survive and vest in his legal heir and successor. Thus, opposite party No. 4, Smt. Jai Raji, who claims to be sister of Mahadeo Singh, cannot claim to be cotenure holder in the disputed holding along with the petitioner nor she can claim to get and retain possession over the land held by Mahadeo Singh because under the terms of the compromise, the land was to revert to the petitioner. 17 An application was filed on 521985 on behalf of the opposite party No. 4 sometime after the close of the arguments seeking permission to file certain documents annexed to the affidavits. Learned counsel for the parties were heard. Admittedly these documents were not filed in the case before the consolidation authorities. But apart from it, these documents are not of any assistance firstly, because these do not indicate that the land of the disputed holding was ever recorded in the name of the common ancestor Ram Ghulam Singh; and secondly, the entries in the revenue records of second settlement were in the name of Bindeshwari Singh son of Ram Ghulam, who was grand father of petitioner Ram Nain, and as such, these documents do not at all help the opposite party No: 4, Mahadeo Singh on whose behalf it was urged that the land belonged to common ancestor Ram Ghulam Singh. In none of the documents filed by opposite party No. 4, the name of Ram Ghulam Singh was recorded, and as such, it cannot be held that Mahadco Singh was given land in the compromise between the parties in aforesaid appeal in earlier litigation in recognition of his preexisting rights as cotenure holder and not by way of Guzaredar for life by way of family settlement by the petitioner of his own accord. The genuineness of the compromise decree cannot be doubted at all as it was also got executed by Mahadeo Singh. The parties would be bound by it as already observed above. 18. It has also been averred in the affidavit accompanying said application that it appears that against the order dated 1241972 passed in one of the earlier subsequent suit, an appeal was filed which had abated and it was indicated that its copy will be filed within one week. No such order could be produced as yet. But even if any such order is there, that would be of no relevance because admittedly no second appeal was filed against the aforesaid compromise decree dated 1091965, which became final and the parties would be bound by it. The abatement of subsequent suit, if at all it had abated, would not be of any assistance nor it will destroy the finality or the binding character of the said compromise decree dated 1091965. 19. In view of what had been said above, I find that the impugned orders passed by opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed and the basic year entry in the name of the petitioner deserves to be maintained. 20. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 21121978 (Annexure No. 8) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, order dated 3111977 (Annexure No. 7) passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Kadipur, Sultanpur and order dated 2131975 (Annexure No. 5) passed by the Consolidation Officer, Chanda, Tahsil Kadipur, District Sultanpur are hereby quashed and the opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to maintain the basic entry in the name of the petitioner as sole tenureholder of the aforesaid holding Khata No. 116 of village Marchha, Pargana Chanda, Tehsil Kadipur, District Sultanpur. No order as to costs. (Petition allowed)