1. The declarant is the revision petitioner.

2. The only point that survives for consideration is this: Is the Taluk Land Board justified in treating the sale of the land measuring 37.22 acres in extent, covered by document No. 2568/50; not on behalf of the petitioner also?

3. Facts relevant to consider this point lie in a narrow compass. The property in dispute is a part of the property covered by Document No.411/50. The property taken in by this document measures 138.90 acres in extent. Going by the said document it can be seen that the property was acquired by the co-ownership consisting of the petitioner, his brother and sitter. The brother sold 37 22 acres as is seen from Document No.2568/50. According to the petitioner this sale must be treated as a sale for and on behalf of the petitioner and his sister also; and if that be so the remaining extent, out of 138.90 acres, should have been treated as belonging to the co-ownership and as such only one third thereof should have been treated as owned/held by the petitioner. The sister died and therefore her share also had devolved on the petitioner. The petitioner therefore contended that he could be treated as having rig