ORDER 1. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the record. 2. This Court is of unequivocal view that the instant second appeal at the behest of legal representatives of deceased appellant-Smt.Umrao Devi, who preferred first appeal No.36/2018, challenging the compromise decree dated 21.8.1989 as amended on 28.11.1994 passed in civil suit No.186/1988 for specific performance and permanent injunction by the Civil Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur is misuse of process of law and even the first appeal was wrongly preferred. Appellant-Smt. Umrao Devi claims her right, title and interest in agricultural lands in question on the basis of registered sale deed dated 18.1.1993, executed by defendant and judgment-debtor Ladu and steps in his shoe and cannot claim better rights than the right of Ladu in lands in question. As far as Ladu is concerned, his rights in respect of the disputed land of 7.5 Biswa have already been adjudicated finally and thereafter, in the execution petition No.3/2006, filed for execution of the compromise decree dated 21.8.1989 as amended on 28.11.1994, the sale deed dated 28.5.2013 has been executed in favour of legal representatives of plaintiff-decree-holder-Bodu by and on behalf of defendant-judgment-debtor Ladu and his subsequent purchasers namely Smt. Laxmi Devi and Smt. Umrao Devi (present appellant). 3. Counsel for appellants, at this stage, seeks permission to withdraw the second appeal with liberty to avail other appropriate remedy in law for claiming/ adjudication of rights of appellants in respect of 7.5 Biswa land, purchased along with other land from defendant-judgment-debtor Ladu through registered sale deed dated 18.1.1993. 4. This Court, since has examined the entire record, therefore deems it just and proper to record following facts as culled out from record: (i) Land of Khasra No. 1123/823 total measuring 10 Bigha 10 Biswa has already been divided in three equal 1/3-1/3-1/3 shares among three brothers Bodu, Ladu and Kana all sons of Deepa. (ii) It appears that Ladu entered into agreement to sale his 1/3rd share to his brother Bodu and Bodu instituted civil suit for specific performance bearing No.186/1988 wherein both parties entered into compromise on 8.8.1989. As per compromise deed dated 8.8.1989, defendant Ladu agreed to sell half share of his 1/3rd share to plaintiff Bodu and on the basis of such compromised, suit for specific performance was decreed vide judgment dated 21.8.1989. As per compromise deed dated 8.8.1989, defendant Ladu agreed to sell half share of his 1/3rd share to plaintiff Bodu and on the basis of such compromised, suit for specific performance was decreed vide judgment dated 21.8.1989. (iii) The compromise decree dated 21.8.1989 has been corrected on an application under Section 151 and 152 CPC, vide order dated 28.11.1994 and measurement of half portion of 1/3rd share of Ladu has been clarified that half share of 1/3rd share of Ladu is 1 Bigha 15 Biswa instead of 1 Bigha 7.5 Biswa and simultaneously, the Khasra number of land in issue was also corrected from 1183/823 to 1123/823. It may be noticed that out of total land of Khasra No.1123/283 measuring 10 Bigha 10 Biswa, the measurement of its 1/3rd share of Ladu undisputedly comes 3 Bigha 10 Biswa. It is not in dispute that 1 Bigha is equivalent to 20 Biswa. Thus, the 1/3rd share of 3 Bigha 10 Biswa is 70 Biswa. Since defendant-judgment-debtor Ladu under the compromise deed dated 8.8.1989 agreed to sell his half share of 1/3rd share to plaintiff Bodu, therefore, out of 70 Biswa, he was required to sell 35 Biswa which is 1 Bigha 15 Biswa. It appears that in the compromise deed dated 8.8.1989, half share of Ladu out of his 1/3rd share, came to be indicated as 1 Bigha 7.5 Biswa instead of 1 Bigha 15 Biswa and when on the basis of such compromise deed dated 8.8.1989, a compromise decree dated 21.8.1989 was passed and such error was noticed, then plaintiff moved application under Section 151 and 152 CPC and that application has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 21.8.1989 has been corrected vide order dated 28.11.1994 and in place of 1 Bigha 7.5 Biswa, measurement has been corrected as 1 Bigha 15 Biswa. (iv) Appellant- Umrao Devi claims to have purchased 2 Bigha 2 Biswa land out of 1/3 share of Ladu through registered sale deed dated 18.1.1993. It may be noticed that Ladu has already entered into compromise to sell half share out of 1/3rd share which should have been 1 Bigha 15 Biswa, so left out share of Ladu is only 1 Bigha 15 Biswa, yet the sale deed dated 18.1.1993 has been executed for the measurement of 2 Bigha 2 Biswa it means for 7 Biswa excessive area. This led to the present litigation. This led to the present litigation. (v) It has also come on record that Ladu also executed another sale deed dated 28.3.1994 in respect of his 1/3rd share in favour of appellant Smt. Laxmi Devi. (vi) Legal representatives of decree holder Bodu, preferred execution petition No.3/2006, to get the sale deed registered in respect of 1 Bigha 15 Biswa pursuant to the compromise decree dated 21.8.1989 as corrected on 28.11.1994. In this execution petition, the judgment debtor Ladu raised objection under Section 47 of CPC that execution petition is time barred. The execution petition was dismissed as time barred but in appeal, the order has been reversed and execution petition has been treated within limitation from the date of amended decree dated 28.11.1994. The Judgment-debtor-Ladu again submitted objections under Section 47 CPC dated 7.9.2012. His objections has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 19.2.2013. In such objections, Ladu nowhere whispered about the sale deed dated 18.1.1993 executed in favour of appellant Smt. Umrao Devi. (vii) Thereafter, Smt. Laxmi Devi submitted fresh objections under Section 47 of CPC dated 19.3.2013, claiming to purchase 1/3rd share of Ladu, vide sale deed dated 28.3.1994, which too were dismissed on merits vide order dated 16.4.2013. (viii) The Executing Court, pursuant to compromise decree dated 21.8.1989 as amended vide order dated 28.11.1994, executed registered sale deed dated 28.5.2013 in favour of legal representatives of decree holder Bodu, in respect of half land of 1/3 share of the judgment-debtor Ladu i.e. 1 Bigha 15 Biswa and has incorporated a recital that possession was already delivered. (ix) The execution petition has been finally disposed of vide order dated 2.7.2013 in full satisfaction of the compromise decree. (x) Thereafter, appellant-Smt.Umrao Devi, who claimed her right through judgment-debtor Ladu, on the basis of registered sale deed dated 18.1.1993, preferred the first appeal seeking leave to appeal to challenge the compromise dated 8.8.1989 and the compromise decree dated 21.8.1989 as amended on 28.11.1994 as also order dated 15.5.2013 passed in execution petition. (xi) At this juncture, Smt. Umrao Devi, on the basis of her sale deed dated 18.1.1993 claimed that she purchased 2 Bigha 2 Biswa from Ladu and out of her 2 Bigha 2 Biswa an area of 7 Biswa has been included in the sale deed dated 28.5.2013 executed by the Executing Court in favour of decree holder Bodu. (xi) At this juncture, Smt. Umrao Devi, on the basis of her sale deed dated 18.1.1993 claimed that she purchased 2 Bigha 2 Biswa from Ladu and out of her 2 Bigha 2 Biswa an area of 7 Biswa has been included in the sale deed dated 28.5.2013 executed by the Executing Court in favour of decree holder Bodu. Therefore, instead of claiming her right, title and interest over the 7 Biswa lands on the basis of her sale deed dated 18.1.1993 and to challenge the sale deed dated 28.5.2013, Smt. Umrao Devi preferred first appeal, in the guise of assailing the compromise decree dated 21.8.1989 as amended on 28.11.1994 in suit No.186/1988 as also assailing the order dated 15.5.2013 passed in execution petition, whereas in the prayer of first appeal the sale deed dated 28.5.2013 has been prayed to be declared as cancelled. (xii) The first appeal has been dismissed vide judgment dated 23.8.2022. Legal representatives of Smt. Umrao Devi have preferred this second appeal assailing the judgment dated 23.8.2022. 5. Taking note of all aforementioned facts, where objections of defendant-judgment-debtor Ladu have already been dismissed and appellant Smt. Umrao Devi claims her right, title and interest through Ladu on the basis of her sale deed dated 18.1.1993, at the most could have challenged the sale deed dated 28.5.2013 executed in favour of plaintiff-decree-holder in execution petition No.3/2006 within prescribed period of limitation. Yet the appellant, choose to prefer first appeal and after dismissal of first appeal vide impugned order dated 23.8.2022, now preferred this second appeal. 6. Since legal representatives of deceased appellant-Smt. Umrao Devi seeks permission to withdraw this second appeal, therefore, the second appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with observations that if any legal right still can be claimed by appellants in respect of 7 Biswa land, alleged to be purchased from Ladu under the sale deed dated 18.1.1993, they shall be free to initiate appropriate legal proceedings, if permissible in law. 7. Record of both Courts below be sent back forthwith.