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