ORDER : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer whereby, the second appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed affirming the order dated 26.12.2003 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer. 3. Briefly noted the facts in the present case are that the petitioners are the legal representatives of Mangla Ram, who is the son of the Original Khatedar- Bakhta and Jiya. The grandfather of the petitioners Bakhta was having a land ad-measuring 1715 bighas in Khasra Nos.21, 23 to 27, 29, 30, 33 to 35 & 68 of Village Sarnayat, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer. Bakhta had two wives namely Jiya & Mirgha. Out of the wedlock from Jiya, two sons and two daughters, namely, Mangla Ram, Pancha Ram, Anchi & Meera were born and from the wedlock of Mirgha, five sons, namely, Bagdu Ram, Manak Ram, Balwant Ram, Heera Ram & Bana Ram were born. 4. During the lifetime of Bakhta, on 19.07.1965, a suit bearing No.159/65 was filed by Pancha Ram & Manak Ram against their father- Bakhta for partition under Section 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1955) before Assistant Collector, Pokran. One more suit bearing No.157/65 was filed by Mangla Ram & Bagdu Ram sons of Bakhta against their father (Bakhta) for partition. Both the suits proceedings were compromised by passing a decree on 08.09.1965 and two parcels of land were granted. One parcel of land (464 Bighas) was granted in favour of Mangla Ram & Bagdu Ram and another parcel of land (620 Bighas) was granted in favour of Pancha Ram, Manak Ram and others and the land parcels mentioned hereinabove were directed to be entered in the names of the parties therein as their Khatedari lands. 5. In the year 1971, out of the parcels of Mangla Ram & Bagdu Ram, Bakhta sold 185 bighas of land by three sale deeds. The petitioner-Mangla Ram herein did not challenge the sale made by Bakhta at that time. In the year 2003, the petitioner- Mangla Ram challenged the order dated 08.09.1965 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer by way of filing an appeal in the suit proceedings undertaken in Suit No.159/1965 by Pancha Ram & Manak Ram. The petitioner-Mangla Ram herein did not challenge the sale made by Bakhta at that time. In the year 2003, the petitioner- Mangla Ram challenged the order dated 08.09.1965 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer by way of filing an appeal in the suit proceedings undertaken in Suit No.159/1965 by Pancha Ram & Manak Ram. The Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 26.12.2003 although condoned the delay, however, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The dismissal order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 26.12.2003 was assailed by the legal representatives of petitioner -Mangla Ram by way of filing a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, but, the same too was dismissed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer vide its judgment dated 20.12.2023. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that a suit for partition could not have been filed under Section 53 of the Act of 1955. He further submits that the decree passed in the year 1965 was de hors the law as no partition suit could have been filed under Section 53 of the Act of 1955. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that when the suit proceedings were dehors the law from its inception, therefore, there was/is no sanctity of the decree passed on the suit preferred by Pancha Ram & Manak Ram. 7. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that a suit for partition could have been filed only by a co-tenant and since Pancha Ram & Manak Ram were not the co-tenants of the property in question, therefore, the suit preferred under Section 53 of the Act of 1955 was not maintainable. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that both the Courts i.e. Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue have committed an error while rejecting the appeals preferred by the petitioners and have not dealt with the point raised therein. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that though on the similar footing, a decree was passed by the learned Assistant Collector, Pokran in favour of the petitioners on 08.09.1965, however, the same was never challenged, therefore, the fruits arising from the decree granted to the petitioners cannot be questioned at this stage. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sahoo & Ors. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sahoo & Ors. V/s Charulata Sahu & Ors., reported in 2023 (9) SCC page 687. On the strength of this judgment, he submits that the compromise entered between the parties under Order 23 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. is bad in the eyes of law. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer on 26.12.2003 and the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer dated 20.12.2023 may be quashed and set aside. 9. E converso, Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents, while opposing the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Appellate Courts have considered the submissions made before them and have rightly rejected the appeals filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that on 08.09.1965, two compromise decrees were passed, one in favour of Pancha Ram & Manak Ram arising out of Suit No. 159/65 and another arising out of Suit No.157/65 filed by Mangla Ram & Bagdu Ram. He further submits that since the parcels of land of the petitioners were sold by Bakhta resulting into decreasing the total land of the petitioners, therefore, aggrieved by the sale effected by Bakhta and in vengeance, the appeals have been filed by the petitioners before the Revenue Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the sale made by Bakhta in the year 1971 was never challenged by the petitioners before any Forum. He also submits that the petitioners continued to enjoy the fruits of the decree passed in their favour on 08.09.1965 in the similar fashion to the decree passed in favour of Pancha Ram & Manak Ram and without raising their little finger, they are assailing the validity of the same which has been passed in favour of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that technically no appeal is maintainable as the decree dated 08.09.1965 had been passed on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that technically no appeal is maintainable as the decree dated 08.09.1965 had been passed on the basis of compromise. He further submits that the grounds raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners before this Court regarding maintainability of the suit for partition under Section 53 of the Act of 1955 were not taken before the First Appellate Authority and, therefore, they are not open to be challenged before the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case including the orders impugned therein. 11. The undisputed facts in the matter show that Pancha Ram & Manak Ram are sons of Bakhta and in pursuance of a compromise decree passed on 08.09.1965, 620 Bighas of land was transferred in their favour. On the same footing, Mangla Ram & Bagdu Ram, who are also sons of Bakhta, also got a parcel of land ad-measuring 279 Bighas by way of a compromise decree passed on 08.09.1965 by the Assistant Collector, Pokran. Both the suits were filed under Section 53 of the Act of 1955. Out of one parcel of land which was given to the present petitioners, Bakhta had sold 185 Bighas of land in the year 1971. The petitioners did not challenge the sale made by Bakhta. It is only in the year 2003, the petitioners assailed the validity of the compromise decree passed on 08.09.1965 in favour of Pancha Ram & Manak Ram before the Revenue Appellate Authority. 12. The facts mentioned above clearly show that in two similar proceedings undertaken by two sets of brothers, two compromise decrees were passed and the two sets of brothers received the lands in their favour. The petitioners have enjoyed the fruits of the parcels of land received by them by a decree passed on 08.09.1965 in the proceedings initiated in a similar fashion by Mangla Ram & Bagdu Ram. Therefore, raising the little finger about the defect in the proceedings initiated by Mangla Ram & Bagdu Ram is not permissible. The petitioners have enjoyed the fruits of the parcels of land received by them by a decree passed on 08.09.1965 in the proceedings initiated in a similar fashion by Mangla Ram & Bagdu Ram. Therefore, raising the little finger about the defect in the proceedings initiated by Mangla Ram & Bagdu Ram is not permissible. If the proceedings initiated by Mangla Ram & Bagdu Ram were de hors the law, then the benefits received by the petitioners in the similar fashion cannot be allowed to stand in their favour. The petitioners cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time. 13. In the opinion of this Court, it is a case where greed has prevailed over the conscience, as in the normal circumstances, one sets of brothers who had received their part of share by getting the land from their grandfather- Bakhta, are not satisfied by the grant of land to the other sets of brothers. The dissatisfaction and jealousy of the petitioners vis-a-vis the set of the respondent brothers have led to initiate the proceedings in the present case. If the proceedings undertaken by the private-respondents are held to be not maintainable then the proceedings undertaken by the petitioners under the same provisions may also lead to a hostile discrimination between the two sets of brothers. 14. This Court also takes note of the fact that on account of the sale made by the grandfather of the present petitioners in the year 1971, a large chunk of land (185 Bighas of land) got reduced from the share of the petitioners which probably was the cause to assail the validity of the land parcel transferred in favour of the private respondents Pancha Ram & Manak Ram. The change of mind with the passage of time was quite natural as one set of brothers had received a huge chunk of land ad-measuring 620 bighas, whereas, the petitioners-brothers have received only 279 bighas which had led to the challenge of the compromise decree dated 08.09.1965. 15. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the petitioners have reaped the fruits of a decree passed on similar footings, then they cannot challenge the same on the technical ground of non-maintainability of the suit proceedings undertaken by the other set of brothers. 16. 15. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the petitioners have reaped the fruits of a decree passed on similar footings, then they cannot challenge the same on the technical ground of non-maintainability of the suit proceedings undertaken by the other set of brothers. 16. It is undisputed that the decree has been passed on 08.09.1965 by a compromise and, therefore, technically speaking, the validity of the same cannot be challenged by filing an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. Further, the memo of appeal preferred before the First Appellate Court shows that the grounds of non-maintainability of the suit under Section 53 of the Act of 1955 was not taken as one of the grounds. It is also noted that the decree passed in 1965 had been assailed by the petitioners in the year 2003 which clearly goes to show that the petitioners were convinced that no wrong had been committed to them. However, only on the ground that they have received lessor portion of the land vis-a-vis their brothers and, therefore, a recourse to file an appeal against the compromise decree had taken by the petitioners. 17. The arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners on the strength of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sahoo (supra) are noted to be rejected on the ground that the facts in that case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case and the petitioners have conveniently enjoyed the fruits of the decree made on compromise in their favour and they are assailing the validity of the decree which was passed in favour of the respondents brothers, although both the decrees were passed on the proceedings arising out of the suits filed under the same provisions. 18. In view of the discussions made above, this Court finds that the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue are just, proper and correct. The writ petition is devoid of any force and the same is, therefore, dismissed.