JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, J.M. - The facts are: On 28.10.1995 Ashu Agarwal, minor under the gurdianship of his father Sunil Kumar institutes a suit for division of holding under Section 176 Z.A. and L.R. Act. The pleadings has set forth the contention that shares are: his 5/10; Budh Sen D/1's th; Krishna Prasad D/4's ?th. On 16.9.1989 the suit is decreed and shares are defined accordingly. 2. The land is Khasra No. 143. It's area 4.14.0 is less than 3.125 acres. An order for sale is promulgated under Section 179 Z.A. and L.R. Act. The valuation of land is ascertained at 403 times of land revenue. This is 11,760.00. Who has preferential right to purchase? This is to determine. On 14.3.1989 Sub-Divisional Officer decides Krishna Prasad D/4 has. 3. Aggrieved by the order, defendant Budh Sen D/2 appeals. Also plaintiff Ashu Agarwal has appealed. Two appeals. On 10.1.1990 Addl. Commissioner by a single judgment upturns the verdict of trial court; he orders auction as the preferential right ticks - Among co-tenure-holders. The second appeal is lodged by Krishna Prasad D/4. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Tenure-holder was Sahu Ram Chander Mai. He transfers ?th share to Sunil Kumar; th share to Budh Sen D/2; ?th share to Krishna Prasad D/4., the purchsers are joint tenants. Their individual shares comprise one unit. These facts are beyond controversy. 6. Even before lodging a suit for partition, co-tenant Sunil Kumar adopts a stratagem to forestall preferential right to purchase of Krishna Prasad D/4. How? This is revealing. He pretends to enter into a family arrangement as to his share with his wife Smt. Alka Agarwal. On 7.9.1982 she files a civil suit No. 189/1982 and Sunil Kumar is defendant. Their three year old minor Son Master Ashu Agarwal is defendant. Sunil's ?th share is shown in Schedule 'C'. This done, a compromise is filed on 13.9.1982 of land in Schedule 'C'. ?th share of joint tenure, without division of holding, is transferred to Ashu Agarwal. By this subterfuge co-tenant Sunil Kumar manages to transfer his undivided share to his minor son Master Ashu Agarwal. It is now pleaded on behalf of Master Ashu Agarwal that his is preferential right to purchase sticks as no land is in his name in the circle. By this subterfuge co-tenant Sunil Kumar manages to transfer his undivided share to his minor son Master Ashu Agarwal. It is now pleaded on behalf of Master Ashu Agarwal that his is preferential right to purchase sticks as no land is in his name in the circle. Sunil Kumar exempts himself from the tiresome burden of showing that he has no other land in the circle of Gaon Sabha. I will not allow him to get away with such an easy cutting of the knot. The reasons are varied and various. Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide title in a law suit relating to revenue paying land. The alleged family settlement with wife Smt. Alka Agarwal is sham. She had no anticedent title to ?th share in plot No. 143. However Master Ashu Agarwal's claim for ?th share is acknowledged? The suit is decreed on basis of a compromise. It is important to remember that no suit can be decreed only on basis of admission or compromise. The court has to examine how a minor has acquired ?th share in joint bhumidhari tenure. The inference is ineluctable that civil court decree and transfer of share to Ashu Agarwal is unsupportable in law. In joint tenancy, as in joint living, one has to lawfully break integrity before becoming a lone Voyager. 1935 RR 333 elucidates: "In case of joint holding belonging to other co-tenants, such a declaration will not be possible unless the division of that holding is done. In case such declaration is made without the division of that joint holding, that declaration cannot be held to be valid." 7. Counsel for appellant contends that suit is not filed by Sunil Kumar and is open to dismissal as misconceived. I will not go to that extent for several reasons. I will treat the suit instituted by Sunil Kumar because as guardian of the minor he has been prosecuting the suit. His name is khataoni as co-tenant. If dismissed, he will begin again as in a suit for partition, cause of action is re-curring. For all intents and purposes, he is plaintiff even though formally as guardian of his minor son, who is notionally plaintiff. 8. Who has preferential right to purchase? His name is khataoni as co-tenant. If dismissed, he will begin again as in a suit for partition, cause of action is re-curring. For all intents and purposes, he is plaintiff even though formally as guardian of his minor son, who is notionally plaintiff. 8. Who has preferential right to purchase? Section 159-B Z.A. and L.R. Act says: "Who does not hold any land in the circle other than his interest in the holding in suit." Surely, Krishna Prasad D/4 does not. I offer him for purchase at Rs. 11,760.00 as trial court does, not because he has less than other co-tenants. That I cannot do in view of 1980 R.D. 255 H.C. I do say because he has no land in circle; other two; plaintiff and Budh Sen D/2 have. Co-tenant Sunil Kumar and his father co-tenant Budh Sen are having land within the circle of Gaon Sabha Khairallahpur. Registered sale-deeds dated 14.3.1983 and 29.12.1970 are on record. Sale-deed dated 14.3.1983 is in the name of co-tenant Budh Sen and sale-deed dated 29.12.1970 for co-tenant for Sunil Kumar. Sale-deed 14.3.1983 in the name of Budh Sen states that Khasra No. 186 is situate in Rampur Banwari Municipality Pargana and Tahsil Najibabad, district Bijnor. Sale-deed 29.12.1970 bears Khasra No. 187 in respect of land situate in Rampur Banwari, Bane Mandi Najibabad. It is on record, borne out too by paragraph 7 of Addl. Commissioner's appraisal, that there is a number of villages including village Rampur Banwari within Gaon Sabha circle Khairallapur. 8. Counsel for respondent has made capital of word Municipality in describing the situation in sale. He submits the lands are inside Municipality and outside the circle of village Khairallahpur. I am not impressed. Where some land is declared to be within the limits of Nagar Palika, it is not enough to transfer the management of disputed land to Nagar Palika unless a notification is issued under Section 117 (3) or (6) of Act No. 1 of 1951. The right of management of the disputed land shall continue to vest in Gaon Sabha. This is clear from 1984 R.D. 160. Also 1975 R.D. 34 enunciates: mere change in territorial limits of a Gaon Sabha transferring area to Town Area will not divest Gaon Sabha of the things specified in Section 117 (6) Z.A. and L.R. Act. The notification should be of divesting Gaon Sabha and vesting in Town Area. This is clear from 1984 R.D. 160. Also 1975 R.D. 34 enunciates: mere change in territorial limits of a Gaon Sabha transferring area to Town Area will not divest Gaon Sabha of the things specified in Section 117 (6) Z.A. and L.R. Act. The notification should be of divesting Gaon Sabha and vesting in Town Area. Then alone jurisdiction of Gaon Sabha will come to an end. Counsel for appellant calls to attention 1975 AWC 23 H.C. It says that even though agricultural plots are including in a municipality, the provisions of Z.A. and L.R. Act will be applicable to such plots. The fact that sale-deeds mention the Municipality, the provisions of Z.A. and L.R. Act will be applicable to such plots. The fact that sale-deeds mention the Municipality, the control of Gaon Sabha circle Khairallahpur is not gone. The lands in the names of co-tenants Sunil Kumar and Budh Sen D/2 are within the circle of village Khairallahpur. The point ends in despair to respondents. 9. Second appeal of Krishna Prasad D/4 is allowed. He has a preferential right to purchase land at Rs. 11,760.00. Order of Addl. Commissioner dated 10.1.1990 is set aside. Sub-Divisional Officer to proceed according to law.