' The petitioner named above come to this Court, in revision, against the orders, dated 14-11-2002 of the Presiding Officer, Revenue Appellate Court, Swat by which he set aside the order, dated 6-1- 2001 and 25-10-2001 respectively of Assistant Collector 1st Grade Dargai and District Collector, Malakand.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the present respondents lodged a suit against the present petitioners i.e, Mst. Saidro Jan etc., in the Court of the then E.A.C./Assistant Copector 1st Grade Dargai for the recovery of Ijara/ejectment. During the course of the proceedings the present petitioners questioned the impartiality of the trial Court so the then P.A./Collector, Malakand transferred the case to the Court of then A.P.A./Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Dargai for disposal. In the said Court one of the present respondents, namely, Jehangir Khan moved an application that since he had sold his share in the landed property measuring 68 Kanals of land bearing Khasra Nos.994, 995, 996, 997, 1009 and 1010 and had received the amount alongwith arrears of Ijara, the suit may be dismissed. The trial Court i.e, A.P.A. Dargai vide his order, dated 6-1-2001 dismissed the suit with the direction to the aggrieved party if any to go to the Civil Court. Aggrieved by that order, one of the present respondent i.e, Mr. Jehanzeb went in appeal to P.A./Collector, Malakand and the said appeal was finally decided by the District Officer (Revenue and Estate)/Collector, Malakand vide his impugned order, dated 25-10-2001 confirming the order of the lower Court. The said order of District Officer (Revenue and Estate)/Collector, was challenged by the present respondent Mr. Jehanzeb before the Presiding Officer, Revenue Appellate Court, Swat who vide his order, dated 14- 11-2002 set aside the lower Court's order and directed the Deputy District Officer (Judicial) Dargai to decide the case according to Land Revenue Act, 1967. The present revision petition in this Court against the order of the Presiding Officer, Revenue Appellate Court, Swat has been lodged by the present petitioners.
3. Arguments heard, case file perused. After hearing versions of petitioners and the respondents and leading through case record, the questions that come to mind instantly are: Can a co-sharer in a joint property sell his share of land independently and can the purchaser in that case step into the shoes of the seller at once after the purchase and should that happen does not it change the complexion of the case and oust the jurisdiction of Revenue Court in a situation in which two co- owners lodge a suit for Ijara/ejectment under the tenancy laws against the respondents and one of the co-owners during the proceedings of the case sells his share to the respondents, as is the position in the case under revision? There is no gainsaying the fact that a joint owner/co-owner can sell his share out of the joint property to anybody and he is legally not required to seek permission from other joint owner/co-owner of the joint property. A Purchaser always steps into the shoes of the seller and assumes his legal status. If a sitting tenant purchases some portion of property from co-sharer, as is the position in the instant case, he becomes a co-sharer into that joint property and his tenancy extinguishes there and then and in that case no suit for ejectment is competent against him. I think the above-mentioned facts and legal position have escaped the attention of the learned Presiding Officer, Revenue Appellate Court, Swat while he was adjudicating the instant case. The respondents in the instant case are brothers inter se. The factum of private partition between them stands established from the documentary evidence available on file. The present petitioners have stepped into the shoes of Mr. Jehangir Khan respondent after having purchased his share in the property and by this happening the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties which existed at the time of lodging of the original suit has simply evaporated into the thin air. If the other respondent i.e, Jehanzeb Khan has any civil score to settle with his brother or the present petitioners, the proper forum for him is certainly the Civil Court and not any revenue avenue. A thorough analysis of the record brings to the force the following glaring facts
(a) Mr. Jehangir respondent had sold his share i.e, 17 Jareebs to the present petitioners, the details of which are 16 Kanals and 14 Marlas in Khasra No,994, 3 Kanals in Khasra No,995/Min, 2 Kanals in Khasra No,996/Min, 17 Kanals and 16 Marlas in Khasra No,1009/Min and 28 Kanals and 10 Marlas in Khasra No,1010. If one looks at the legal side of the case one cannot resist saying that section 70 of the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act clearly lays down that whenever question of title crops up between the parties litigating before a Revenue Court as has been the position in the present case, the Revenue Court had better direct the parties to move the Civil Court. I am of the view that both the lower Courts vide their orders., dated 6-1-2001 and 25-10-2001 had rightly appreciated the facts of the case and correctly held that since question of title had now cropped up and a pre-emption suit too is sub judice in the Civil Court on the same land, the legal course for the aggrieved party is to knock the door of Civil Court. For the foregoing reasons, I restore the abovementioned orders by setting aside the impugned order, dated 14-11-2002 of the Presiding Officer, Revenue Appellate Court, Swat.