JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the Judgment and decree dated February 17, 1972 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad confirming the Judgment of the Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Kanpur dated December 3, 1970 in a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur had filed a suit seeking a declaration that Shyam Lal, defendant-respondent, was wrongly recorded a Sirdar of plot No. 625 and 627 in village Jarauli and seeking his ejectment as a trespasser. Shyam Lal contested the suit claiming to be a Sirdar on the basis of the lease granted to him by the L.M.C. on August 25, 1955. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit. 4. The grounds taken in the second appeal are, firstly, that the trial court erred in not framing proper issues regarding public utility land which has prejudiced the appellant; secondly, the lower appellate court has erred in declaring the respondent to have acquired the rights of Sirdar by adverse possession in pasture land; thirdly, that the trial court erred in not deciding issue No. 4 of the basis of evidence on record and the learned Additional Commissioner has erred in giving a finding on validity or invalidity of the lease; fourthly, the courts below have erred in making out a new case of adverse possession in the absence of specific plea thereon; and lastly, that the courts below have erred in raising presumption of possession from 1363 F. 5. The extracts from the Khatauni and the Khasra which are on the record show that the wole of plot No. 627 is pasture land (Charagah) and so is part of plot No. 625. The courts below have clearly erred in law in not considering the provisions of Section 132 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act which lays down as follows: "Section 132 - Lands in which Sirdari rights shall not secure. Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 131, but without prejudice to the provisions of Section 19, Sirdari rights shall not accrue in:- (a) pasture land or lands covered by water and used for the purpose of growing Singhara or other produce or land in the bed of a river and used for casual or occasional cultivation." 6. Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 131, but without prejudice to the provisions of Section 19, Sirdari rights shall not accrue in:- (a) pasture land or lands covered by water and used for the purpose of growing Singhara or other produce or land in the bed of a river and used for casual or occasional cultivation." 6. Apart from that the defendant-respondent had claimed Sirdari rights on the basis of an alleged lease granted in the favour by the L.M.C. and not on the basis of adverse possession. Neither the lease deed nor a Qabuliat nor any extract from the proceedings of the L.M.C. to show the grant of the lease has been filed. The courts below have erred in law in culling out a new case for the defendant-respondent of the acquisition of Sirdari rights by virtue of adverse possession. It is not open for a court to make out a new case for any party not pleaded by him. The defendant-respondent in his written statement no where claimed acquisition of Sirdari rights by adverse possession and thus the courts below have gone stray in putting up this theory. Apart from that under the amended law there is no period of limitation provided for ejectment of trespasser by Gaon Sabha or its successor and consequently no Sirdari rights in the land of the Gaon Sabha can now accrue by virtue of adverse possession. 7. The trial court has also further erred in not framing a specific issue on the plea taken by the Nagar Mahapalika that the land in suit was a pasture land, and no Sirdari rights could accrue in it. This has also resulted in miscarriage of justice. 8. The result is that the judgments of the courts below are perverse and erroneous in law. I, hereby, allow the second appeal and set aside the orders of the courts below. The case is now remanded to the trial court for a fresh decision according to law in the light of the observations made above.