JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the revisional court dated 15-4-1975. The petitioner's claim themselves as the heirs of Meghra alias Shakoor whereas the contesting opposite party has claimed that Meghra was alive at the relevant time and continued to be the tenure holder of the disputed land. The Consolidation officer as well as the Settlement officer Consolidation gave judgments in favour of the petitioners where the revisional court has allowed the revision filed by the opposite party no. 2 and has recognised his claim. Aggrieved by the revisional court's order the petitioners have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends before me that the revisional court has failed to consider oral evidence led in the case. Secondly it has been pointed out that the revisional court has mis-read the documentary evidence and has failed to record categorical finding on the question whether Meghra was alive at the relevant date and yet gave judgment for the opposite party no. 2 in the present writ petition who is now represented by his heirs. 3. Learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted that the basis of the judgment of the first two courts is the compromise in a mutation case which is not at all binding on the parties with regard to the title in view of the decision of this Court reported in (1973 A.W.R. 279) Bhurey v. Pir Bux and others. I have perused the impugned judgments and in my opinion the judgment of the revisional court stands vitiated in law because of misreading of the documentary evidence. The revisional court has made the following observations in the impugned judgment." rglhynkj ds U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ns[kus ls fuxjkuh drkZ ds dFku dks cy feyrk gSA blesa ,d dfr; le>kSrk yxk gSA dgk x;k gS fd eqa'kh[kk iq= oLlk [kka dk uke ntZ fd;k tkosA ;fn okLro esa e/ksjk foi{khx.k eqa'kh o beke [kka dk HkkbZ ;k rks foi{khx.k us fookfnr Hkwfe ij fuxjkuh drkZ dk uke ntZ fd;s tkus dh jtk eanh D;ksa nh bldk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ugha fd;k x;kA 4. It is noteworthy that in the compromise in the mutation case there was no question of giving any consent by the petitioners for recording the name of the contesting opposite party No. 2. It is noteworthy that in the compromise in the mutation case there was no question of giving any consent by the petitioners for recording the name of the contesting opposite party No. 2. Rather the real question before the mutation court was whether the names of the present petitioners should be recorded in place of Meghra alleged to have died. A perusal of the above observation of the revisional court would lead to the inference that the revisional court has mis-appreciated the facts regarding the mutation case, therefore, its finding cannot be said to be based on evidence on record and it suffers from misreading of documentary evidence. 5. To my mind, the revisional court has also failed to consider the oral evidence led by the parties in the case. 6. As regards the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party, it is true that the admission or compromise in the mutation case on the question of title is not binding between the parties. But it is noteworthy that if any admission about the facts or about the relationship with the tenure holder is made its effect should be examined by the revisional court. The revisional court has failed in this regard. However, if there is any admission in the compromise, its effect on the claims of the parties can be looked into by the revisional court. 7. Before me it has been contended that the compromise did not bear the signature of the opposite party. If that contention is correct, there would be no real compromise and this question involves determination on the question of fact which can better be looked into by the revisional court. Since the revisional court has misread the documentary evidence indicated above. I think that its judgment suffers from apparent error and is hereby quashed and the revisional court is directed to decide the case strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.