Honble ARVIND, M.—This is a review petition under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2001 passed by the learned Division Bench of the Board in appeal Decree/TA/76/95/Sikar. 2. With the review petition the appeal has been heard on merits, hence the review petition and the appeal are being decided simultaneously. 3. Brief facts of this case are that the disputed land of khasra No. 437 and 439/1345 area 3 bighas 15 biswas was recorded in the names of Satyanarain and Chhaju Ram as one-half each. Chhaju Ram sold half share mentioning that he is selling the specific land on which he has his possession and possession was handed over to Rakesh Kumar through a registered sale-deed. Satyanarain filed a suit before learned S.D.O., Fatehpur saying that the sale-deed of the land should be declared as null and void because sale-deed was without any consideration and fictitious. He also argued that he should be declared as khatedar for the area sold by Chhaju Ram. It was also prayed that in addition to Satyanarain and Chhaju Ram, third son Prahlad Ray of their father was also there, hence share should be divided by 1/3 each but since the land was recorded in the names of two brothers by mistake, one brother Chhaju Ram sold the land taking advantage of the wrong entries. Chhaju Ram presented a counter-claim saying that he sold the land which was in his possession and as he was a co-tenant for one-half share he was entitled to sell his share. Learned S.D.O., Fatehpur rejected the suit and accepted the counter claim of Chhaju Ram. 4. Chhaju Ram presented a counter-claim saying that he sold the land which was in his possession and as he was a co-tenant for one-half share he was entitled to sell his share. Learned S.D.O., Fatehpur rejected the suit and accepted the counter claim of Chhaju Ram. 4. An appeal was made to learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar who accepted the appeal on 5.5.95 and ordered as under:– ^^vr% ;g vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk lq;ksX; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk bl izdj.k esa izlkfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnukad 15-3-94 dks [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA fooknxzLr vkjkth;kr ds lg [kkrsnkj Nktwyky }kjk fu"ikfnr rFkkdfFkr jftLVMZ foØ; i= dks cukoVh] izHkkoghu vkSj izfrQy jfgr ekurs gq, vnkyr ;g fu.kZ; nsrh gS ds bl foØ; i= dh vkM+ esa xSj vihykFkhZ jkdsk dqekj dks fookfnr vkjkth ij dksbZ LokfeRo ugha feyk gS ,oa mldk dCtk vfrØeh dh gSfl;r ls gS fooknxzLr vkjkth;kr [kljk uEcj 437 jdck 4 ch?kk] [kljk uEcj 439 jdck 3&9 ch?kk ,oa [kljk uEcj 439@1345 jdck 0&1 ch?kk dqy fdrk 3 jdck 7&10 ch?kk okds xzke y{e.kx< dks oknh@vihykFkhZ ,oa izfroknh@vihykFkhZx.k ds la;qä [kkrs dh ?kksf"kr dh tkrh gSA bu vkjkth;kr esa oknh@vihykFkhZ lR;ukjk;.k] e`rd Nktwyky ds mÙkjkf/kdkjh ,oa e`rd izgyknjk; ds mÙkjkf/kdkjh Øek% 1@3] 1@3] 1@3 Hkkx ds [kkrsnkj dkrdkj gksaxsA mä vkjkth;kr ls xSj- vihykFkhZx.k dks csn[ky fd;k tkrk gS vkSj rFkkdfFkr foØ;ukek dh vksV esa xSjvihykFkhZ }kjk fooknxzLr Hkwfe ij yxHkx 12 o"kZ rd uktk;t :i ls dCtk djus ds crkSj vihykFkhZx.k dks 2000@& :i;s gtkZus ds :i essa nsus ds vknsk Hkh fn;s tkrs gSA** 5. An appeal against this order was made to learned Division Bench of the Board of Revenue, who upheld the order of learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority and order as under:– ^^bl izdj.k esa ;g vfookfnr gS fd fooknxzLr Hkwfe cakh/kj ds uke gS ftldh iqf"V mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr tekcUnh lEor~ 2035 ls 2038 ds bUnzkt dks ns[kus ls gksrh gSA tc cakh/kj ds rhu iq= gS rks rhuksa iq=ksa ds chp cakh/kj dh e`R;q ds ckn 1@3] 1@3 izR;sd dk fgLlk curk gSA ,d iq= Nktwjke }kkjk tks foØ; i= fy[kk x;k gS og fooknxzLr vkjkth ds 1@2 Hkkx dk cspku fd;k x;kA tc vfoHkkftr vkjkth;kr esa Nktwjke dk 1@3 fgLlk gh fl) gksrk gS rks 1@3 fgLlk j[kus okyk O;fä dqy vkjkth dk 1@2 Hkkx ugha csp ldrkA jktLo fjdkMZ esa Nktwjke o lR;ukjk;.k dk 1@2 o 1@2 Hkkx dk ;fn =`fVok vadu Hkh gks x;k rks Hkh bldk fdlh i{kdkj ds gdksa ij cqjk o foijhr izHkko ugha Mkyk tk ldrk gSA Lo;a cspkudrkZ Nktwyky Hkh fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa vius tokc esa dFku djrk gS fd mldk fgLlk fooknxzLr vkjkth esa 1@3 gh gSA ks"k fgLlk vU; nksuksa HkkbZ;ksa o muds okfjlksa dk gSA mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ds lEeq[k izLrqr Nktwjke ds bl dFku dks Hkh mi[k.M vf/kdkjh us utjvUnkt fd;k] tks U;k;ksfpr ,oa fof/k lEer ugha gSA vihy U;k;ky; }kjk vius vknsk esa lg [kkrsnkj Nktwyky }kjk fu"ikfnr o dfFkr jftLVMZ foØ; i= dks cukoVh izHkkoghu o izfrQy jfgr ekuk gSA blds fy, v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; esa bldk foospu Hkh fd;k gs ysfdu jftLVMZ foØ; i= dh oS/krk dh voS/krk dks /;ku esa ugha j[kk tk, rks Hkh jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh ds fu.kZ; }kjk o fgUnw mÙkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj vfoHkkftr Hkwfe ij e`rd ds lHkh okfjlksa dk LoRo ,oa vf/kdkj gksrk gSA vr% blh rF; dks Hkh n`f"Vxr j[kk tk, rks Hkh jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh lhdj }kjk tks vknsk fn;k gS mlesa fdlh izdkj ds gLr{ksi dh vko;drk izrhr ugha gksrh gSA jktLo e.My }kjk dbZ fu.kZ;ksa esa ;g LFkkfir fd;k x;k gS fd ,d lg [kkrsnkj fcuk vU; [kkrsnkjksa dh lgefr ds o Hkwfe ds foHkktu ds viuk fgLlk ugha csp ldrkA pwafd Nktwjke dk dkuwuu fgLlk 1@3 Hkkx dk gh curk gS tcfd mlus 1@2 Hkkx dk cspku fd;k gSA og Hkh Hkwfe ds foHkktu ds fcuk o vU; lg dkrdkjksa dh lgefr ds fcukA ftls fof/kd ekU;rk ugha nh tk ldrh gSA ,slh n`f"V ls ge jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh lhdj }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMØh esa dksbZ =qfV ugha ikrsA mä foospu dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, ;g f}rh; vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh lhdj ds fu.kZ; dks ;Fkkor~ j[kk tkrk gSA** ¼,e-,y-tSu½ ¼ch-ch- egkfUr½ lnL; lnL; 6. A review petition has been made against this order, praying that Chhaju Ram was the co-tenant and he was entitled to sell one-half share for which the land recorded existed in his favour. It was also argued that a co-tenant can sell his share in holding. It was also stated that at the time the land was sold this land was recorded in the names of Satyanarain and Chhaju Ram and the name of third brother did not exist. As such the third brother was not entitled for any share unless he brought a declaratory suit himself. Instead of his bringing a declaratory suit, his brother brought a declaratory suit for which he was not entitled. It was also argued that registered deed can be cancelled or declared null and void or as inoperative only by a civil court and the learned Division Bench erred in declaring the fact of registered sale deed as inoperative by rejecting the appeal against the judgment and decree of learned R.A.A., Sikar. 7. The arguments of the learned advocates were heard at length regarding the review and the merits of the appeal and the record was perused. 8. The main argument of learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner-appellant is that admittedly Rakesh Kumar, the appellant, purchased the land from Chhaju Ram who was recorded tenant of one-half share of the disputed land. Even if it was subsequently declared that Chhaju Ram is co-sharer of one- third of the disputed land then also the purchaser Rakesh Kumar cannot be deprived from the bona fide purchase of one-third share in the disputed property. he also argued that registered sale deed can only be cancelled by he civil court and revenue courts are not competent for declaring the sale as null and void. Learned Division Bench went beyond his jurisdiction about the registered sale-deed. It was also argued that learned Larger Bench of this Board has settled the position that no permission of another co-sharer is needed for selling the share by making a sale upto his share by a co-sharer. Learned Division Bench went beyond his jurisdiction about the registered sale-deed. It was also argued that learned Larger Bench of this Board has settled the position that no permission of another co-sharer is needed for selling the share by making a sale upto his share by a co-sharer. In case the co-sharer sold beyond his share even in that case his sale upto one third share cannot be declared as null and void and since the purchaser has been in possession for long time when the sale took place Chhaju Ram was recorded as co-sharer for one-half of the disputed land, hence another co-sharer cannot be deprived from making a sale upto his share. He also argued that legal position has been misconceived and relevant record has been ignored. He invited our attention to the authorities of Honble Supreme Court as reported in AIR 2005 SC page 592 and AIR 2006 SC page 75. He also argued that present non-petitioner Satyanarain has not come with clean hands before this Court because he also sold his one-half share in the property through sale-deed dated 11.10.96, this proves that he admits that this land was divided into one-halves between two brothers Chhaju Ram and Satyanarain. Satyanarain had no locus standi to bring a suit. The claim of Satyanarain is ill-conceived, improper and unjust. He also invited are attention to a decision of LB of this Board reported in 1977 RRD page 470. 9. Arguing against the petition, the contention of learned Advocate on behalf of the non-petitioner is that the scope of review is very limited and review cannot replace the remedy of appeal. Arguments once raised cannot be re-argued under the garb of review. He also argued that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and there are no grounds on which this review petition can be accepted. He also argued that the judgment may be erroneous, but erroneous decision cannot be any ground for review. He invited our attention to the following authorities:– 2005 RRT(1) SC page 545 AIR 1961 SC page 970 AIR 1960 SC page 137 (2000) 6 SCC page 224 (1997) 8 SCC page 715 (1995) 1 SCC page 170 10. He also argued that the judgment may be erroneous, but erroneous decision cannot be any ground for review. He invited our attention to the following authorities:– 2005 RRT(1) SC page 545 AIR 1961 SC page 970 AIR 1960 SC page 137 (2000) 6 SCC page 224 (1997) 8 SCC page 715 (1995) 1 SCC page 170 10. Having heard the learned advocates regarding the review petition and appeal on merits and having perused the record, we come to the following conclusions:– (a) It is admitted fact that when the registered sale deed was made Chhaju Ram was recorded as co-sharer of one-half of the land in the records of right, i.e., Jamabandi. (b) It has nowhere been mentioned that the third brother Prahlad Rai has tried any legal remedy independently. (c) Satyanarain was recorded as co-tenant of the one-half share and a suit under Section 88 and 183 of the Tenancy Act is not maintainable against a co-tenant. (d) Rakesh Kumar is a bona fide purchaser and he cannot be treated as a trespasser. (e) Co-sharer can transfer upto his share without getting consent of another co-tenant, hence the view taken by the Division Bench is misconceived and it is error apparent on the face of the record. (f) Relevant record and position of law has not only been misconceived but has been ignored in this case, hence, the authorities of Honble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2005 SC 592 and AIR 2006 SC page 75 are both directly relevant in the facts and circumstances of this case. (g) Learned Division Bench went beyond its jurisdiction in declaring the purchaser Rakesh Kumar as trespasser and misconceived the facts and legal position of this case. (h) It is settled principle of law that the appellant-petitioner Rakesh Kumar cannot be deprived from his one-third share in the disputed property because the seller Chhaju Ram was competent to sale one-third of his share. (i) The sale was made through a registered sale deed and registered sale deed cannot be declared null and void by a revenue court but this sale deed will be operative only upto the extent to which the seller is competent to make a transfer. No purchaser can receive a better title than the seller himself has. (i) The sale was made through a registered sale deed and registered sale deed cannot be declared null and void by a revenue court but this sale deed will be operative only upto the extent to which the seller is competent to make a transfer. No purchaser can receive a better title than the seller himself has. (j) Rakesh Kumar appellant-petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and he cannot be declared as a trespasser and the judgments of learned Division Bench and of learned R.A.A. are bad in the eyes of law. (k) The judgment of learned Division bench is against the facts record and legal position, as discussed above, hence this judgment deserves to be set aside. (l) We agree with the part of the judgments of learned R.A.A. and learned Division Bench that the land sold beyond the share of Chhaju Ram cannot be allowed to be held by purchaser Rakesh Kumar. 11. As such the judgment of learned Division Bench dated 20.11.2001 is set aside and the review petition is partly accepted and the judgment is amended to the extent that appellant Rakesh Kumar is ordered to be khatedar tenant to the extent of one third share in the disputed land purchased by him from khatedar Chhaju Ram.