1. This revisional application raises a short question as to whether the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the lower appellate Court was competent. The lower appellate Court has held that the appeal was incompetent and Mr. Madbhavi for the petitioner disputes the correctness of this finding.

2. The point arises in this way. On the 5th of February, 1939, a sale-deed was executed in favour of the petitioner for Rs. 2,000. The property conveyed was Survey No. 12. In 1944 the vendor brought a suit No. 1 of 1944 under the Dekkhan Act. Ho claimed a decree for accounts and redemption. This suit was compromised. Under the terms of compromise the vendor was under an obligation to pay specific amounts within the period specified by the compromise decree. On his failure to comply with this order, the vendee was held entitled to obtain possession of the land. The vendor failed to comply with the directions issued by the compromise decree and the vendee filed an execution application and claimed possession of the property conveyed. These proceedings were transferred to the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act Court because the vendor again raised the question that he was a d