The share of a vendee in property purchased jointly is determined by the contribution made towards the purchase price, and not solely by the recital in the sale deed, especially when the dispute is between the vendees inter se.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs writ petition arising out of a suit Under Section 138/176, U. P. Zamindari abolition and Land Reforms Act. The plaintiffs father had claimed half share in the disputed property.

( 2 ) IT had been alleged that the plaintiff had contributed to the extent of half the consideration of sale deed to his uncle Surajmal and he had been in possession over his half share and the defendants had denied the claim of the plaintiff on the basis of the recital in the sale deed indicating 1/21 share of the plaintiff in the disputed property, hence the suit.

( 3 ) THE defence in the suit was the denial of the plaintiffs share in the disputed property and it was alleged that the plaintiffs name was mentioned in the sale deed to the extent of 1/21 share on the request of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had not contributed towards sale consideration and that the property belonged to the defendants father Surajmal and various other pleas were taken.

( 4 ) THE trial court and the appellate court substantially accepted the contentions of the plaintiff that he had contributed in the sale consideration to the extent of half share and that he was entitled to half share in the disputed property, hence the plaintiffs suit was decreed by them. In second appeal by the defendants the plaintiffs claim has been negatived and the plaintiff has been given a decree only to the extent of 1/21 share in the disputed property on the basis of the recitals in the title deed of the parties. Aggrieved by the judgment of the second appellate court the plaintiff-petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that in view of the provisions of Section 45 T. P. Act, the plaintiff is entitled to half-share in the disputed property on the finding recorded by the first two courts that the plaintiff contributed in the sale consideration to the extent of half share, Secondly it was contended that the second appellate court has patently erred in relying upon the recitals in the sale deed indicating the share of the plaintiff while determining his share in the disputed property.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the con-testing opposite parties has submitted in reply that the judgment of the appellate court did not suffer from any patent error of law as the terms of the sale deed could not be varied in view of the provisions of Section 92, Evidence Act, Since the share of the plaintiff was indicated in the title deed as 1/21, the second appellate court was fully justified in setting aside the judgments of the first two courts and declaring the share of the plaintiff as 1/21. Secondly it was contended that on the basis of estoppel the plaintiff could not claim more than 1/21 share. Thirdly the revenue court could not vary the terms of the sale deed unless the sale deed was got set aside by the plaintiff. Fourthly it was submitted that declaration of the plaintiffs title was involved in the circumstances of the present case, hence the State of U. P. should have been impleaded in the suit and in the absence of necessary party the plaintiff could not get the decree and it is not a fit case where interference should be made with the impugned judgment of the second appellate court especially when it has granted a share to the plaintiff.

( 7 ) I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties.

( 8 ) THE second appellate court has dealt with the claims of the parties in paras 8 and 9 of its judgment. It appears that the second appellate court has mainly relied upon the recitals of the sale deed indicating the share of the plaintiff. According to the second appellate court if the plaintiff had contributed in sale consideration to the extent of half share he had remedy only in criminal court or civil court. The second appellate court has made the following observation in para 8 of its judgment. " no law has, however, been cited in respect