regarding possession is concerned and however observed that the plaintiff has constructed the house in suit item No.1 and no doubt in suit item No.1 he got 2 guntas of land, it held that the trial Court without appreciating the said admission made by DW.1 with respect to possession of the plaintiff, boundary and extent of the suit schedule property, erroneously dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The very approach of the first appellate court is erroneous and the first appellate Court misunderstood the document Ex.D-32 and document Ex.P-2. Ex.D-32 came into existence only on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. When the plaintiff himself does not dispute the compromise entered into by the parties and in terms of compromise, the total extent of 8 guntas of land which is a common plot, divided 4 guntas in respect of respective Survey Numbers 2 guntas each, as eastern portion and western portion and no such discussion was made by the first appellate Court while reversing the finding of the trial court. When the respondent also not disputes Ex.P-2 and Ex.D-32, there is force in the contention of the appellant’s counsel that the trial Court has misread the document Ex.D-32 and Ex.P-2 and hence the appellant has made out a ground to set aside the Judgment and decree by reversing the finding of
