JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a revision against the decree and judgment May 23, 1973 passed by Sri Saiyid Husain, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division in Appeal No. 1013 from the order dated September 1, 1970 passed by the Assistant Collector, Faizabad in Case No. 374 under Section 134, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. One Ram Sumere had applied before the Assistant Collector, Faizabad on May, 20, 1970 for grant of Bhumidhari Sanad in respect of his ?rd share in a Sirdari holding consisting of plot Nos. 25-B, 51 and 68 in village Dostpur. Jaskaran and Hari Ram who were also recorded as co-tenure-holders in the holding alongwith Sumere, filed an objection on June 6, 1970 claiming that Sumere's share was only 1/12th and not ?rd. After giving due opportunity to the contesting parties the Assistant Collector by his order dated September 1, 1970 ordered that share of Sumere in the holding was ?rd and that Bhumidhari Sanad be issued accordingly. The learned Additional Commissioner by his order dated May 23, 1973 has, however, held that the share of Sumere will be modified from ?rd to th in the Sanad. A revision against this order has been filed by Ram Bachan, minor under the guardianship of Ram Baran, who claims to be the vendee of Sumere's share. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the learned Additional Commissioner has misinterpreted Section 134, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and that under this Section only recorded tenure-holder could be allotted shares, whereas the learned Additional Commissioner had acted illegally and without jurisdiction in allotting shares to persons who neither filed any objection nor contested the matter. The learned counsel has further contended that the claim of the opposite parties was barred by him under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as after the consolidation operations final records were prepared and only Hari Ram and Jaskaran and Sumere were recorded as co-tenure-holders. 5. In the Khatauni of 1375-77 Fasli Hari Ram, Jaskaran and Sumere are recorded as co-Sirdars of the holding in dispute. 5. In the Khatauni of 1375-77 Fasli Hari Ram, Jaskaran and Sumere are recorded as co-Sirdars of the holding in dispute. The learned Additional Commissioner has stated that by a compromise dated August 12, 1957 it was agreed that Ram Sumere, Bhagwati and Bhaggi will have th share and the remaining th belong to Hari Ram and Jaskaran and this agreement was binding upon the parties: If this view is taken as correct, then Ram Sumere's share in the holding in dispute will come to 1/12th (i.e. ?rd of th) and not th as held by the learned Additional Commissioner. I have looked into the said compromise application dated August 12, 1957. It was in respect of holding Nos. 6 and 34. Now, the learned Additional Commissioner has been guilty of misreading of evidence. He has failed to observe that the holding s referred to in the said compromise application and the holding in dispute in the present proceedings are not the same. The holding in the present proceedings is 104/A consisting of three plots only, Nos. 25, 51 and 68 with a total area of 5-13-0. On the other hand, according to the extracts filed on the record, holding No. 34 itself included a large number of plots Nos. 36/1, 36/2, 79/1, 105, 106, 107/1107/2, 108/1, 108/2, 110/1, 110/2, 111/2, 111/2 and 7-A. The opposite parties have failed to show that holdings Nos. 6 and 34 to which the compromise relates have any connection with the present holding for which a Bhumidhari Sanad has been applied for. They have also failed to show that the Khatauni entry 1375 to 1377 Fasli recording Hari Ram, Jaskaran and Sumere as co-Sirdari in the holding in dispute was not correct. Further proceedings under Section 134, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act are not a form for adjudication of title or for correction of records. If the opposite parties are aggrieved by the entries in the Khatauni they should seek their remedy in the proper forum. In proceedings under Section 134 the Assistant Collector has merely to satisfy himself that the applicant is a recorded Sirdar or co-Sirdar and has voluntarily, without any use of fraud or coercion moved the application for grant of Bhumidhari Sanad and deposit the requisite amount in the treasury. If these three conditions are fulfilled, the Assistant Collector has no option but to grant the Bhumidhari Sanad. If these three conditions are fulfilled, the Assistant Collector has no option but to grant the Bhumidhari Sanad. In the present case, all these conditions were fulfilled. The applicant Ram Sumere was recorded as one of the three co-Sirdars of the land. By oral and other evidence also it was shown that his share was ?rd. The learned Assistant Collector therefore, correctly ordered the Sanad to be issued in respect of ?rd share of the applicant. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist has also contended that it was nobody's case that the share of Sumere in the holding was th. Sumere himself had claimed his share to be ?rd. This is also the case of the revisionist. The opposite parties have, on the other hand, claimed Sumere's share to be 1/12th. The learned Additional Commissioner has, however, set up an entirely new case beyond the pleadings of the parties by holding that Sumere's share was th. The learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to Hargovind Singh v. Dharmindhar and others, 1971 R.D. 460, in which a learned Member has observed as follows: "The suit of the plaintiff was for a declaration that he was a Sirdar of the land in suit and he had not sought any declaration of co-Sirdari along with the defendants. Under the circumstances, it was not open to the learned. Additional Commissioner to set up a new case, beyond and outside the pleading of the parties. In Messrs Tarojan and Company v. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 S.C. 235 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found without an amendment of the plaint, the Court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for. This view of the Supreme Court has been reiterate in Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar and others, AIR 1957 S.C. 133 . In Ram Jiwan Kori v. Board of Revenue, 1965 A.W.R. 775, the High Court has held that the claim of exclusive tenancy does not include a claim for joint tenancy. This view of the Supreme Court has been reiterate in Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar and others, AIR 1957 S.C. 133 . In Ram Jiwan Kori v. Board of Revenue, 1965 A.W.R. 775, the High Court has held that the claim of exclusive tenancy does not include a claim for joint tenancy. It was thus not open to the learned Additional Commissioner to pass a decree of co-tenancy in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in the present suit." The learned counsel for the opposite parties has been unable to show how it was open to the learned Additional Commissioner to set up an entirely new case beyond the pleadings of the parties. I, therefore hold that the order of the learned Additional Commissioner is quite perverse and erroneous in law. 7. I hereby allow the revision, set aside the order of the learned Additional Commissioner and restore the order of the learned Assistant Collector.