DR. HOOJA, C.—Appellant has filed this second appeal under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment of learned Revenue Appellate Authority Nagaur dated 18.7.2006. 2. The Brief facts of the case are that appellant filed a suit before trial Court for partition of agricultural land situated in village Nadwa Tehsil Parbatsar Distt. Nagaur, as khasra No. 183 measuring 28 bighas 10 biswas and khasra No. 184 measuring 6 bighas 2 biswas. As both plaintiff and defendants are real brothers, they entered into a compromise before the trial Court which was attested and the suit was decreed vide judgment dated 18.10.2003. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed first appeal before learned Revenue Appellate Authority Nagaur who dismissed the same vide his impugned judgment dated 18.7.2006. Again aggrieved by this judgment plaintiff has filed the second appeal before this Board of Revenue. 3. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court is slightly different from the compromise entered between the parties hence it should be quashed and case be remanded for re-hearing. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents disagrees with the above contention and supports the judgment of the Courts below. 6. We have considered the rival contentions, perused the judgments of both the lower Courts and have gone through the record available on the file. 7. The only dispute raised by learned advocate for plaintiff relates to the joint rights given to defendant over the way marked as A to B in Naksha Nazri submitted by plaintiff along with the suit. He submits that no such right was granted to defendant in compromise but still such right has been granted to him by impugned judgments hence the judgment and decree should be quashed or modified accordingly. 8. We have perused the pleadings of plaintiff in suit, reply of defendant, compromise application, report of patwari dated 19.8.2004 and the judgment and decree of the trial Court as upheld by the first appellate Court and we find that- (a) Plaintiff-appellant and defendant-respondent are real brothers. (b) Plaintiff in his para 11(1) of the relief clause of suit has written. We have perused the pleadings of plaintiff in suit, reply of defendant, compromise application, report of patwari dated 19.8.2004 and the judgment and decree of the trial Court as upheld by the first appellate Court and we find that- (a) Plaintiff-appellant and defendant-respondent are real brothers. (b) Plaintiff in his para 11(1) of the relief clause of suit has written. ^^fd ekStk uMok dh ljgn esa fLFkr [ksr mukyh okyk [k-ua- 184 jdck 6 ch?kk 2 fcLok ,oa [kljk uEcj 183 jdck 38-11 dqy jdck 44-11 ¼2½ ch?kk esa ls layXu uD'ks esa yky jax ls nf'kZr ^^d** jdck 11-1 ^^p^^ o ^^[k^^ jdck 10 ch?kk dqy jdck 21-1 ¼ch?kk esa ls uD'ks esa nf'kZr jkLrk , ls ch dk jdck de dj 'ks"k 21 ¼ch?kk oknh ds caV esa ,oa izfroknh ua- 1 ds caV esa [kljk uEcj 184 jdck 6¼2½ iwjk ,oa uD'ks esa ^^x** jdck 12-1 ¼ch?kk ,oa jdck 5-1 ¼ch?kk bUnzkt dj [kkrk vyx vyx dj yxku vyx vyx r; dj vyx vyx [kljk uEcj dk;e fd;s tkosA** (c) In 'Naksha Nazri' submitted along with suit, presence of 'Rasta' of 5 biswas has been separately shown by mark A to B. (d) In the compromise dated 26.3.03 also plaintiff has admitted the presence of the said 'Rasta' in the portion of both plaintiff and defendant. (e) The plaintiff filed application under Section 152 C.P.C. for correction/amendment in the degree regarding the dispute raised in this appeal. This application was dismissed by the trial Court vide its order dated 22.11.05 which was upheld by the learned Single Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 15.5.06 in Revision No. 5746/05. 9. Hence in our opinion the original decree has been passed in accordance with the pleadings and compromise between the appellant and respondent No. 1 and there is no material or legal irregularity which requires interference of this Court in this second appeal. 10. In these circumstances, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer Parbatsar as also the learned Revenue Appellate Authority Nagaur has not committed any illegality in declaring the said 'Rasta' marked as A to B to be in the joint tenancy and joint use of both appellant and respondent No. 1. 11. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no orders of cost. 12. Pronounced.