The main legal point established is that joint pattadars who are ryotwari tenants are not automatically considered co-owners under Sect. 90 of the Trusts Act, and the Collector has the authority to set aside the Deputy Collector's order.

Devadoss, J.

1. The first point urged for the appellant in this second appeal is that the purchase by the 1st defendant enured for the benefit of the plaintiff as well, and that he is, therefore, entitled to a decree so far as his share is concerned. The finding is that both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant defaulted to pay the Government revenue, in consequence of which the revenue authorities brought the plaintiffs properties to sale, and it was sold in auction. The contention of Mr. Anantakrishna Aiyar for the appellant is that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are co-owners, that by the default of the co-owners the property was sold, that taking advantage of his position as such the 1st defendant bought the property and that, therefore, Section 90 of the Trusts Act applies to this case In the first place I am not satisfied that the word co-owner applies to the case of joint pattadars who are ryotwari tenants. The plaintiff is the owner of specific items of property, and the mere fact that the patta stands in the joint names of himself and one or two others would not make the other persons co-owners which the plaintiff within the meaning of Sect. 90 of the Trusts Act. It is urged that there is a joint liability to pay the Government revenue and that that joint liability makes them co-owners. In my opinion it is only an accident that the patta stands in the names of two persons who are entitled to different items of property and who have no community of interest between them. In this case no doubt the plaintiff and the 1st defendant happen to be relatives, but there are cases in which persons who have nothing to do with one another happen to own property for which patta stands either in the joint names of both in the name of one of them or in the name of a third person. In such cases, if the owner of some specific items makes default in paying the Government revenue, the Government is entitled to bring any one of the items mentioned in the patta, in respect of which a default in payment of revenue is made, to sale, and this circumstance, in my opinion will not make joint pattadars or persons, who own lands separately but for which the patta is joint, co-owners. Reliance is placed upon an observation in Faizar Bahman v. Maimuna Khatun (1913) 17 C.W.N. 1233 for the position that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are co-owners. There is no definition given of co-owners but in all the cases which have been cited at the Bar I find that co-owners are persons who own property jointly, that is to say, there was no division by metes and bounds of the shares of the different owners. In the case in Faizar Bahman v. Maimuna Khatun (1913) 17 C.W.N. 1233 the persons who made default in payment of the revenue due to Government were co-owners with the persons whose shares were afterwards sold. Section 90 of the Trusts Act applies only to cases of tenants for life, co-owners, mortgagees and other qualified owners, of property who avail themselves of their position as such in gaining an advantage in derogation of the rights of other persons interested in the property. In that view I do not think that the decision in Deo Nandan Prasad v. Janki Singh A.I.R. 1916 P.C. 227 helps the appellant. In that case their Lordships of the Privy Council held that, if one co-owner makes default in payment of Government revenue and if the object be to bring the share of the other co-owners to sale and afterwards to buy the property himself, such a sale, though good, would enure, for the benefit of the owner of the share which has been sold. They also observe that it is not necessary that there should be actual fraud proved in order to enable the co-sharer whose share has been sold in auction in a Revenue sale to claim the benefit of the purchase by another ca-sharer, but from their judgment it is clear that the person who takes advantage of his position as a co-sharer must have done something in that capacity, that is qua co-sharer, to bring the