JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - The appeal has been filed under Section 331 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the decree and judgment of the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 30-6-1986 passed in appeal no. 55 of 1985-86 arising out of the judgment and order passed by the 3rd Assistant Collector 1st Class, Aligarh dated 31-12-1985 in a suit under Section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that Lila and Tanna real brothers were bhumidhars of the suit plots. Tanna has sold his half share to the respondents Chhatra & others. After the sale Devi Sing son of Lila Filed the suit under Section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 claiming 3/4th share in the disputed plot arraying Tanna as a defendant. Tanna appeared and filed the compromise that he has only 1/4th share on the disputed plot. The suit was decided on the basis of that compromise, then the appeal was filed by vendees who are respondents. The Additional Commissioner after considering the fact of the case and evidence of the parties came to the conclusion t hat before filing of the suit Under Section 176 Tanna has already sold his share in the disputed plot. Therefore. He had no right to compromise the suit because there was no interest left to Tanna in the disputed plot. Against the finding this second appeal has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. Tanna sold the property on 28-10-1971 regarding his half share in plot no. 128 area 29-16-10. The present suit was filed as suit No. 20 on 11-11-1982. The finding recorded by the first appellate court is perfectly legal and sound when the property was already sold regarding 1/2 share of the Cotenant and the tenant was not a party in the suit. Therefore, he was not entitled to compromise in the suit. In the circumstances of the case I find no force in this second appeal. There is no substantial law and the question of fact involved in this case, Therefore, this second appeal is accordingly dismissed.