Judgment : 1. By this appeal, the appellants have impugned judgment and decree dated 31.1.1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad in Special Civil Suit No. 28 of 1992 whereby suit of the appellants/plaintiffs for recovery of compensation amount came to be dismissed. 2. Facts are that land bearing Gat No. 10 admeasuring 3.67 HR, Gat No. 13 admeasuring 7.73 HR and Gat No. 82 admeasuring 3.52 HR situated at village Chincholi, Tahsil Digras, District Yavatmal was acquired by the State Government for Arunawati Project. Award came to be passed on 4.3.1989 in Land Acquisition Case No. 4/65/1984-85 of village Chincholi by which compensation amount was fixed at Rs. 3,59,174/-. It appears that at the time of disbursement of amount of compensation, as a result of amicable settlement between original appellant/plaintiff Vithalrao and defendant/respondent no.4 Sumitrabai (his legally wedded wife), 40 per cent in the sum of Rs. 1,47,670/- was paid to appellant Vithalrao while 60 per cent amount of compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,21,504/- was paid to defendant/respondent no.4 Sumitrabai. Appellant/original plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs. 2,21,504/- against respondents 1 to 3 and respondent no.4 jointly and severally together with interest thereon at Rs. 1.50 p.c.p.m. as according to the plaintiff, amount of Rs. 2,21,504/- or for that matter, no amount at all should have been paid to defendant no. 4 Sumitrabai. After considering the evidence led before it, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Special Land Acquisition Officer ought not to have ordered payment of any amount muchless 60% amount of compensation to respondent no.4 Sumitrabai as the land which was acquired was exclusively belonging to appellant Vithalrao. He contends that learned trial Court has answered issues as to the ownership of appellant over suit land and its acquisition by the Government in the affirmative and, therefore, it ought to have been held that entire amount of compensation should have been diverted to the appellant. That having not been done, according to learned counsel for appellant, the impugned judgment and decree is rendered erroneous and appeal needs to be allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that defendant no.4 was not a protected tenant and finding to that effect given by the trial Court is wrong, erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that defendant no.4 was not a protected tenant and finding to that effect given by the trial Court is wrong, erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 4. These submissions have been stoutly opposed on behalf of the respondents on the ground that the trial Court found that original appellant Vithalrao and defendant no. 4 Sumitrabai were not cordial in their relationship, because the appellant had abandoned her and had contracted second marriage with one Vimlabai and had children from her. Under these circumstances, because of strained relations between Vithalrao and Sumitrabai, Sumitrabai was residing separately and suit land was given to her for her maintenance and she was cultivating it independently and enjoying crops since the lifetime of Nagorao (father of appellant). According to learned counsel for respondent no.4, since Sumitrabai had actually cultivated the land as a tenant, she was protected tenant under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy of Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act and was entitled to receive entire amount of compensation. However, when at the time of actual disbursement there was an objection raised by appellant, parties arrived at an amicable settlement whereby 40% of compensation amount came to be paid to appellant Vithalrao and 60% amount of compensation came to be paid to respondent no. 4 Sumitrabai. He contended that appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have perused the entire record. Plaintiff Vithalrao did not enter into witness box. It is apparent from record that land was given to defendant no.4 Sumitrabai during the lifetime of Nagorao, father of plaintiff Vithalrao for her maintenance. That had occasioned owing to the strained relationship between the spouse and appellant Vithalrao had contracted second marriage and had children also from second marriage. It was lifetime arrangement for maintenance of defendant no.4 and she was naturally entitled to receive compensation for acquisition of the land by the State Government. In fact and in law she was entitled to receive entire amount of compensation, but for harmonious arrangement and amicable settlement, she received 60% amount from and out of the compensation paid. Appellant was estopped from challenging disbursement of 60% compensation to defendant/ respondent no. 4 Sumitrabai and in my opinion, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit. 6. There is no merit in the appeal and it has to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.