JUDGMENT S.S. Ahmed, Member. This is a revision filed by Jugraj Singh, against the order dated March 18, 1971, passed by additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, allowing the appeal filed by Sukhram Singh against the order dated April 30, 1970, passed by Tahsildar Kannauj, district Farrukhabad in a case u/s. 134 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. Jugraj Singh moved as application for the grant of a bhumidhari sanad in respect of his half share of the holding in dispute. An objection was filed by by Sukhram singh, the recorded co-sharer that the application had only ?rd share in the holding, that this land had been acquired by Sukhram Singh, Bishram Singh and Jugraj Singh, Sukhram Singh and Bishram Singh were real brothers. On the death of Bishram Singh, his share went to the objector Sukhram Sigh with the result that Sukhram Singh held ?rd share in the holding while the share of applicant Jugraj Singh is only ?rd. The learned lower court ordered that sanad be granted for half share and aggrieved by this order Sukhram Singh filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, who allowed it directing that bhumidahri sanad in favour of Jugraj Singh be prepared in resect to only ?rd share in the holding. Jugraj Singh has now come up in revision against this order. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of this case. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the fist appellate court only considered the position as it emerged after 1362F but completely ignored the fact that prior to that the date the share of the revisionist was 1/2. According to him, if there had been a division of the holding on the basis of the per stirpes and not per capita, the share of the revisionist would have come to 1/2. It was on the basis of this line of argument that the trial court had accepted the claim of Jugraj Singh and directed that a sanad in respect of share be prepared in favour of Jugraj Singh. 5. It was on the basis of this line of argument that the trial court had accepted the claim of Jugraj Singh and directed that a sanad in respect of share be prepared in favour of Jugraj Singh. 5. The learend counsel for the opposite party has, on the other hand placed on the extract of Khatauni for 1362F in which the names of Bishram Singh and Sukh Ram Singh, sons of Kallu Singh and of Jugraj singh s/o Thakuri Singh are recorded as adhivasis. In the remark column, there in an endorsement that these person have acquired sirdari right and in view of Z.A. form no. 101 their names should be recorded as sirdars. He has, thus, maintain and his plea has been upheld by the Additional Commissioner that Bishram Singh, Sukhram Singh and Jugraj Singh were the recorded sirdars of the disputed land since 1362-F and each of three co-tenure-holders had equal share. It is common ground that Bishram Singh died and his share devolved on his only their, namely, his brother Sukhram sing who was also a recorded co-tenure-holder of this holding. on account of this development the share of Sukhram singh became ?rd and that of Jugraj Singh continued to be ?rd only. 6. Giving my earnest thought to the problem, I feel that there is considerable force in the argument of the learned force in the argument of the learned counsel for the O.P. which has also been accepted by the learned Additional Commissioner. Proceedings u/s. 134 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act are of a summary nature and a decision under the proceedings does not bar by res judicata in any subsequent suit for determination of title. This is the view held in the case of Mahabir v. Narain Saran 1960 A.L.J. page 137 (Rev.), Similarly, there in nothing to prevent an of the co-sharers to apply for partition of the holding u/s. 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act after a bhumidari sanad has been issued u/s. 134. This is the view held in the case of Mahabir v. Narain Saran 1960 A.L.J. page 137 (Rev.), Similarly, there in nothing to prevent an of the co-sharers to apply for partition of the holding u/s. 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act after a bhumidari sanad has been issued u/s. 134. In other words, if Jugraj singh allowed sanad in respect of 1-3rd share only and he feels that the division of holding prior to 1362F should have been on per stirpes and not per capita basis, it is always open to him to apply for a partition of the holding claiming share and as and when his claim is accepted, he can obtain a fresh sanad in respect of this share. In proceedings u/s. 134 it is neither possible nor necessary to go into all those details which can enable the court of determine the share of respective parties. All that is required in that the Assistant Collector should satisfy himself that on the basis of record of right the applicant is entitled to a bhumidhari certificate. Hence it was quite unnecessary for the trial court to have gone into the merits of Jugraj's case and it should have contended itself with an examination of record of rights from 1362 F onwards when three persons acquired sirdari rights in respect of the disputed holding. 7. In view of all these facts, I find that the revision has no merits. It is accordingly dismissed. However, the parties will bear their own costs.