JUDGMENT Miss Kamlesh Sharma. J.—This appeal under section 100 (old) C P C is directed against the decree and judgment dated 25-3-1983 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hamirpur Division at Una whereby the appeal of respondent-plaintiff Smt. Parmeshwari was dismissed against respondent-defendant Sohnu and allowed against respondent-defendant Smt Chinti and the decree and judgment dated 10-2-1978 of Senior Sub-Judge Una were modified accordingly. The Senior Sub-Judge had dismissed her suit in toto. 2. The undisputed facts are that the land in dispute is 34 kanals 8 marlas situated in village Arniala, Teh. & District Una as entered in Jamabandi for the year 1968-69. One Shri Inder was owner of the land in dispute alongwith some other land. Parmeshwari was his only sister Inder had gifted the land in dispute in her favour on 28-12-1959 and she had inducted Sohnu as tenant over it. Thereafter, Inder filed suit against Parmeshwari and her husband Basanta challenging the gift made in favour of Parmeshwari. Sohnu was also made party to said suit, which ultimately ended in a compromise dated 20-11-1961 Ex. PW-8/A. The terms of the compromise are as under, which have been reproduced by the Additional District Judge in para 3 of his judgment:— (i) The gift in question was valid and binding upon the parties. (ii) Inder donor and his wife Smt. Chinti (defendant No. 2 in the present case) would get possession of the subject •.matter of the gift and that the donor and his wife would be entitled to the produce of the land till their life-time and that after the death of donor as well as his wife, the property in gift will again revert to the plaintiff. 6 (iii) Although the donor and his wife would be entitled to the produce of the land, the ownership will continue to remain with the plaintiff subject to the contingency that if Smt Chicti gave birth to an issue from the loins of her husband then the sift in question shall stand revoked. In other words, in the event of birth of a legitimate issue, the subject-matter of the gift would be inherited by such legitimate issue in preference to the donee. (iv) The donor and his wife would cultivate the land themselves or get it cultivated through husband- (Basanta) or father-in-law (Nauranga) of the plaintiff and that the land would not be given to anybody else for cultivation. (iv) The donor and his wife would cultivate the land themselves or get it cultivated through husband- (Basanta) or father-in-law (Nauranga) of the plaintiff and that the land would not be given to anybody else for cultivation. (v) The donor and his wife would be bound by the "Pattanama" on the basis of which Sohnu (defendant No 1) was cultivating the land as Chakotadai’ for a period of three years and the donor and his wife would be entitled to receive the amount of Chakota from the defendant No. 1 till the expiry of the Patta and thereafter, they will take possession of the suit land. (vi) The donor and his wife would not be competent to alienate the gifted property." 3. Further, admittedly on the expiry of three years period of Patta the possession of the land in dispute was not taken over from Sohnu and handed over to the husband or father-in-law of Smt. Parmeshwari as per the terms of the compromise and Sohnu continued to hold the land as earlier. On the death of Index, his widow Chinti was recorded as owner of half of the land in dispute by Mutation No. 2977 dated 21-11-1962, which was challenged by Parmeshwari Devi by filing civil suit No. 544 of 1963/71 of 1964. This suit was decreed on 24-3-1964 (Ex. P-3) ; Parmeshwari Devi was declared exclusive owner of the land in dispute besides other land which was gifted to her by Inder and Mutation No. 2977 dated 21-11-1962 was held wrong, void, ineffective and against the rights of plaintiff. 4. Thereafter, Parmeshwari alongwith Udhmi wife of Gainda Ram and Gainda Ram filed another suit against Sohnu for ejectment and recovery of rent before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade claiming themselves owners of the land in dispute alongwith other land, which was contested by Sohnu on the plea that he was holding land under Chinti to whom he had been paying rent. Ownership of Parmeshwari was also denied. This suit was ultimately dismissed on 30-12-1968 Ex. D-8A holding that, "After the execution of the compromise Parmeshwari Devi had no locus standi to claim any rent or profit of the land which has vested in Inder and his wife Chinti and will be beyond her province until both of them are dead. Moreover, Sohnu defendant has been paying rent regularly vide receipts Ex. D-2 to D-4. D-8A holding that, "After the execution of the compromise Parmeshwari Devi had no locus standi to claim any rent or profit of the land which has vested in Inder and his wife Chinti and will be beyond her province until both of them are dead. Moreover, Sohnu defendant has been paying rent regularly vide receipts Ex. D-2 to D-4. These receipts cover the harvests in suit." Ultimately the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen, was filed on 30-11-1971 for possession of the land in dispute, inter alia, on the allegations that Chinti had lost right to have maintenance under the compromise because she had become unchaste and remarried, and also that Sohnu who had denied the ownership of Parmeshwari Devi over the land in dispute had lost right to continue in possession as tenant. 5. The suit was resisted by both Chinti and Sohnu by filing a common written statement. Sohnu claimed that he was holding the land in dispute as a tenant under Chinti and paying rent to her. However, this time he did not deny the ownership of Parmeshwari over the land in dispute. Their common case was that Parmeshwari had no right to claim possession of the land in dispute during the life time of Chinti as per the terms of compromise. The allegations that Chinti had become unchaste and remarried were also denied. 6. This defence of respondents-defendants found favour with the trial Court and it dismissed the suit holding that Chinti had not become unchaste and had not remarried, and has a right to have maintenance as per the terms of the compromise during her life time, ft was further held that Parmeshwari had no locus standi to file the suit for possession during the life time of Chinti. As possession was not taken over from Sohnu after the expiry of three years period of Patta and he continued to be in possession as before, Parmeshwari had no right to ask for possession from him because he was holding land in dispute under Chinti and paying rent to her in his capacity as a tenant. These findings were affirmed by the first appellate court. Hence, the present regular second appeal. 7. This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. These findings were affirmed by the first appellate court. Hence, the present regular second appeal. 7. This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Shri Naresh Thakur, appearing vice learned Counsel for the appellant, has taken this Court through the pleadings and evidence to challenge the concurrent findings of fact of both the courts below that Chinti had not become unchaste and had not remarried, but failed. This Court is not supposed to reappreciate the evidence to come to its own conclusion in exercise of jurisdiction under section 100 (old) C. P. C. Assuming the allegations made against Chinti are correct, t oth the courts below have rightly held that her right to have rent of the land in dispute towards her maintenance arises out of the compromise, the terms whereof do not provide for a bar that on her becoming unchaste and remarriage she will be disentitled to have rent of the land in dispute as her maintenance. 8. Another point raised by Shri Thakur is that in view of the terms of compromise Chinti was required to take over possession from Sohnu and hand it over to the husband or father-ia-law of Parmeshwari for the purpose of cultivation, failing which the possession of Sohnu had become that of a trespasser. According to him Chinti had no right to attorn Sohnu as a tenant by accepting rent from him in violation of terms of compromise. Shri Thakur further submits that interpretation of the terms of compromise is a question of law, which this Court may go into to set aside the concurrent findings of both the courts below that Sohnu continues to be tenant over the land in dispute. 9. Shri Thakur is right to the extent that construction of a compromise deed and interpretation of its terms is a question of law which this Court can go into in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 100 (old) C. P. C. but on examining the compromise in question in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances on record, this Court finds that both the courts below have correctly held that the possession of Sohnu over the land in dispute did not become of a trespasser and he continued to be a tenant there-of. The terms of compromise do not provide for the eventuality in which on the expiry of term of Patta possession of the land was not taken over from Sohnu, who was initially inducted as Chakotadar by Parmeshwari herself. Both the courts below have correctly interpreted the terms of compromise to hold that during the life time of Chinti no suit could be filed against her depriving her from realising the rent of the land in dispute towards her claim of maintenance. Parmeshwari did not assert her right as per the terms of compromise and ask for taking over the possession of the land in dispute from Sohnu to hand it over to her husband or father-in-law on the expiry of the period of three years of Patta till she filed suit for ejectment which was dismissed on 30-12-1968 In the meantime, Himachal Pradesh (Transferred Territory Tenants Protection of Rights) Act, 1968 came into force on 11th September, 1968 and the rights of Sohnu were to be governed under it. In view of this Act, sections 105 to 117 of the Transfer of Property Act were not applicable to the agriculture tenancies. Further argument of Shri Thakur is also without any force that in view of clause (g) of section 111 of Transfer of Property Act, the tenancy rights of Sohnu stood determined because he renounced his character as such by setting up a title in third person : Snit. Chinti. In view of this, this Court need not refer to the case law Namdeo Lokman Lodhi v. Narmadabai and others, AIR 1953 SC 228, cited by him on the point that for want of notification as required under section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act the relief cannot be denied if it is available on principles of equity, justice and good conscience. Above all, this Court finds that in view of the definition of tenant as given in section 4 (5) of the Punjab Tenancy Act which was applicable at the relevant time and which has been incorporated in section 2 (17) of Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, Sohnu was right in taking the plea that Chinti was the landlord as he was holding land in dispute under her and paying rent to her. 10. 10. Shri Thakur further points out that during the pendency of appeal before the first appellate court Chinti had settled the matter with Parmeshwari and admitted her claim in the suit and the first appellate court has decreed the suit of Parmeshwari against Chinti as a result of which she can claim possession from Sohnu. In view of the findings of this Court that Sohnu continued in possession of the land in dispute as a tenant and his rights are to be governed in accordance with Tenancy Laws of the State, there is no substance in this submission and it is rejected. Moreover, as observed by the first appellate court and is apparent from judgment Ex. D-8A passed in the suit filed by Parmeshwari alongwith Udhmi Devi and Gainda Ram and revenue record, half of the land in dispute has been sold in favour of Udhmi Devi and Gainda Ram, and the suit of Parmeshwari was not maintainable in respect of half of the land in dispute. If. The result of above discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.