You should file a suit for declaration and partition in the court of the Assistant Collector/SDM

2)seek a court declaration that your share is 3/4th (based on your 3:1 contribution) rather than the presumed 1/2 share for joint purchasers.

3) A combined suit for Declaration (Section 229B) of your 75% share and Partition (Section 176) by metes and bounds is the standard procedure to ensure your unequal contribution is legally recognized before the land is physically divided.

4) seekan interim injunction to prevent her from taking a disproportionate share of the orchard income (Kunjara) while the suit is pending.

Since the land is agricultural land in Dehradun (Uttarakhand) and recorded in revenue records, the correct forum is the Revenue Court (Tehsildar/SDM), not the Civil Court, for partition (bantwara).

Partition of agricultural land is governed by the revenue law. Civil court jurisdiction is barred for partition of agricultural holdings. File partition proceedings before the Revenue Court (SDM/Tehsildar).

File under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

If consideration is unequal, share can be determined proportionately, but burden of proof is on you because the sale deed may show joint ownership without share ratio, hence you may face unnecessary problems in the litigation hence if possible you may settle down amicably and get the fresh agreement between you both reduced to writing to avoid future complications too.

You can claim 3:1, but success depends on proving source of funds. Intention at time of purchase.

Insofar as the brokerage is concerned, include these costs in pleadings as improvement expenses, seek equitable adjustment.

In a partition suit you cannot insist strictly on “9 m vs 27 m strip”. Court may give different shapes/locations to ensure fairness.

Therefore you are advised to:

File partition suit under Section 176 before SDM/Tehsildar. Claim 3:1 share, but be ready to prove. Include brokerage + fencing as equitable adjustment. Physical division will be as per practicality, not strict width. Keep settlement option open.

Your matter involves joint ownership with unequal financial contribution, and the remedy must be approached carefully in terms of both jurisdiction and proof.

Since the property is agricultural land situated in Dehradun, matters relating to its partition are generally governed by revenue laws. Therefore, the appropriate forum would be the Revenue Court at the level of Tehsildar/SDM, and not the regular civil court, unless you specifically seek a declaration of title beyond what is reflected in the revenue records. In your case, the correct provision to invoke is Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (as applicable in Uttarakhand). Section 22B would not apply to your situation.

On the issue of unequal contribution, although you state that the payment ratio was approximately 3:1, the registered sale deed is the most important document. If the sale deed records both of you as joint purchasers without specifying shares, the law generally presumes equal ownership. To claim a higher share, you will have to prove through clear documentary evidence, such as bank transactions and surrounding circumstances, that your additional contribution was intended to give you a larger ownership stake and was not a loan, gift, or informal adjustment. This burden of proof is quite strict, and unless convincingly established, authorities may still treat the ownership as equal.

As regards brokerage and fencing expenses, these are typically treated as subsequent expenditures and not part of the purchase consideration. You may raise a claim for adjustment or reimbursement of such amounts, but they ordinarily do not change the ownership ratio in the property.

With respect to physical division of the land, partition is not carried out purely on a mathematical basis such as dividing the width into fixed proportions. The authority will consider factors such as nature of the land, existence of orchard, access, utility, and fairness between parties. Therefore, allocation of specific portions like upper or lower side cannot be predetermined by either party and will be decided by the authority.

The appropriate course of action would be to file a partition application under Section 176 before the competent revenue authority and assert your claim of higher contribution with supporting documents. If the dispute regarding ownership share becomes substantial, you may also consider filing a civil suit for declaration of your share. If the other party is appropriating disproportionate benefits such as orchard income, you may seek appropriate interim relief.

In conclusion, while the law does recognize unequal contribution in certain cases, the presumption arising from the registered sale deed is strong, and success in claiming a 3:1 share will depend entirely on the strength of your evidence. Proceeding before the Revenue Court under Section 176 is the correct first step.

Since this is agricultural land, the partition case should generally be filed before the Revenue Court / Assistant Collector First Class (SDM level) under Section 176, not the civil court. If your share itself is disputed, declaration of share may also be needed under Section 229-B.

Your 3:1 claim can be taken only if you can prove the actual payment made by each side, because law recognises share in proportion to the consideration paid. Brokerage and fencing cost do not automatically increase ownership share, though they may be claimed separately if properly proved.

Please get the sale deed and revenue entries checked by a local property lawyer before filing, so the correct section and forum are chosen.

Yes you can file partition suit for the same and seek your share as per your contribution. You can also ask her to buy your share from you

It is sufficient to prove that payment was made from your bank account 

2) your sister in law has no documentary evidence to prove her contribution 

These are only the documents and your oral evidence 

Your line of thinking is correct, but you should approach this issue with clarity on how courts assess contribution in such cases.
The mention of your cheque number and amount in the sale deed, coupled with corresponding entries in your bank passbook, is strong and primary evidence of your contribution. Similarly, if you can show cash withdrawal immediately prior to the date of registration and link it with the transaction, it becomes supporting circumstantial evidence. However, courts treat cash transactions cautiously, so while helpful, cash withdrawal alone is not conclusive unless it clearly connects to the purchase.
On the other hand, if the opposite party claims to have paid in cash but has no documentary trail, such as bank withdrawal, receipts, or any corroboration, their claim becomes weak. Mere oral assertion of cash payment is generally not sufficient, especially when your documentary evidence is stronger.
To establish a 3:1 contribution convincingly, you should build a chain of evidence, not rely on one piece alone. Useful supporting material includes:
Bank statements showing cheque payments
Timing of withdrawals vis-à-vis date of registry
Any written communication, agreement, or acknowledgment between parties
Statements of witnesses present at the time of transaction
Income proof showing your financial capacity vis-à-vis the other party
Courts look at the overall probability and financial capacity of each party. If you can demonstrate that you had the means to contribute more and the other party did not, it strengthens your case.
At the same time, be aware that a registered sale deed carries a strong presumption of equal ownership if both names are mentioned without specifying shares. Therefore, your burden is to rebut that presumption with clear and convincing evidence.
As practical advice, you should:
Consolidate all banking records and timeline of payments
Highlight inconsistencies in the other party’s claim
Seek interim protection in the partition proceedings to safeguard possession or prevent alienation
Avoid over-reliance on cash arguments unless well supported
In summary, your documentary evidence is a good starting point, but success will depend on how coherently you establish the entire financial narrative before the court.

The cheque number and the amount mentioned in the sale deed and also the cash withdrawn the previous day,supported by passbook entry are no doubt strong evidence, but you may have to state if you had given it as a gift  or loan to your husband or there was any agreement for joint ownership of the property, if you do not have anything to prove the above then arguments about the details of payment made by you may not come to your rescue. 

The other party can claim orally that they have paid the amount in cash which can be relied upon by court as the property was registered on the name of the other party.  However your arguments based on the evidence viz., salary slips / business income, ITRs (Income Tax Returns), Bank statements showing liquidity at that time and when compared with your husband's financial incapacity at that time may add strength to your case. But it will be more powerful if you can prove with the documents showing any  written understanding (even informal) or any Emails / WhatsApp / letters discussing Investment or Ownership or even Loan documents (if you treated it as such).

You can even bring witnesses such as people present at time of purchase or any family members aware of arrangement or the Broker / document writer who can support your claim. 

Further you state that you have already disclosed about this property in the DV though you have not claimed title, and your pleadings about the property was admitted by your husband in the cross examination, it may support your claim for title declaration. 

However  you may please note that the evidence is not a big issue to prove your claim, it is only the limitation point which will go against you, i.e., even if you prove 3:1 contribution, the property has already been sold, you knew about the sale of the property 5 years ago, hence court may dismiss the suit as barred by limitation.

Therefore the biggest hurdle is limitation and legal framing, not just proof

Yes, the cheque amount mentioned in the sale deed and matching bank entry are good proof of your payment.
The cash withdrawn one day earlier is supporting proof only, not final proof that it was used in the sale.
Her not having a withdrawal record helps your case, but it does not automatically prove 3:1; you still have to prove the larger share with overall facts and conduct.
Most importantly, do not take the stand that you paid her share also, because with a sister-in-law that can create a benami issue.

Practical next step: keep ready the seller/broker statement, any receipt/messages, draft deed/payment discussion, and proof of who held the title papers and paid expenses.

Your matter is a classic example where title on paper is joint, but contribution is unequal, and unless handled carefully, the court may default to equal shares. The key is how you frame the proceedings and, more importantly, how convincingly you prove the intention at the time of purchase.

Let me address your queries step by step, but also add some practical insight from how such matters are actually decided.

1. Whether to file in SDM court or Civil Court, and under which provision

Since the land is agricultural land in Dehradun, the governing law is the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (as applicable to Uttarakhand).

• A pure partition of agricultural land is ordinarily to be filed under Section 176 of the Act before the Revenue Court (SDM/Assistant Collector).
• Section 22-B is not relevant for your facts; it deals with different contingencies and is often misunderstood.

However—and this is very important—your dispute is not merely partition, but determination of unequal shares (3:1 instead of 1:1).

Revenue courts are generally competent to partition, but:

• When there is a serious dispute about title or proportion of share,
• And especially where you are asserting that though the sale deed is joint, the beneficial ownership is unequal,

then the safer and more legally sound course is:

• First seek a declaration of your respective shares (3:1) from a Civil Court, and
• Thereafter seek partition (either in the same suit or subsequently through revenue proceedings)

In practice, many revenue courts proceed on the basis of recorded title (usually equal shares) unless there is a clear adjudication otherwise.

So, strategically, a civil suit for declaration + partition is preferable in your case.

2. Whether you can claim partition in 3:1 ratio

Yes, in law, courts have recognised that co-owners can have unequal shares based on contribution, but—and this is crucial—this is not automatic.

Courts look for:

• Clear proof of actual financial contribution, and
• Evidence that parties intended ownership in that proportion at the time of purchase
  

If the sale deed is silent and shows both names jointly without specifying shares, the initial presumption is equal ownership. You will have to rebut this presumption.

3. Your evidence – is it sufficient?

You have some helpful material, but it is not conclusive by itself:

• Your cheque payment reflected in the sale deed and bank passbook → strong evidence
  
• Cash withdrawal one day prior → supporting but not definitive proof
  
• Her lack of bank withdrawal → helps your case, but does not automatically disprove her contribution
  

The difficulty is this: cash transactions are inherently weak evidence, and courts are cautious.

4. Other ways to prove 3:1 contribution

To strengthen your case, you should look for:

• Any written understanding, messages, emails, or WhatsApp chats indicating that you funded most of the purchase
• 
  Witnesses present at the time of transaction (broker, deed writer, relatives)
• Proof that the cash given to her actually originated from you (if you can connect the withdrawal to her payment)
• Any subsequent conduct, such as:

  • You bearing major expenses (brokerage, fencing, maintenance)
  • You managing the property exclusively

Courts often rely heavily on conduct after purchase to infer intention.

5. Claim of brokerage and fencing expenses

Yes, you can certainly raise this, but understand how it will be treated:

• These expenses generally do not change ownership share directly
  
• However, you can claim:

  • 
    Equitable adjustment at the time of partition, or
  • Reimbursement/compensation

It strengthens your overall equity, even if not mathematically altering the share.

6. Her demand for a better portion (upper side, frontage etc.)

This is a very practical issue.

Even if shares are determined as 3:1, partition is not done merely by dividing width mathematically. The court/revenue authority considers:

• Location and value of different portions
• Access, road frontage
• Existing orchard (mango trees in your case)

So:

• She cannot insist arbitrarily on the “better portion”
• The authority will aim for equitable partition by value, not just measurement
  

If needed, adjustments in area or compensation are made to balance value.

7. Important legal caution (very significant in your facts)

You have mentioned that:

Part of the money shown as paid by her was actually given by you to her.

Be very careful here. This can raise issues under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act.

• If it appears that you paid money but property is in her name (even jointly), the court may examine whether this is a benami element, which is generally not enforceable except in limited exceptions.

Therefore, your case should be framed more as:

• 
  Unequal contribution in a joint purchase,
  not
• Payment in her name on her behalf

The distinction is subtle but legally critical.

8. Practical strategy

Based on your facts, the most prudent course would be:

• File a civil suit for declaration of shares (3:1) and consequential partition
  
• Lead strong evidence of contribution and intention
• Simultaneously or subsequently pursue partition through revenue machinery if required
  

In conclusion

• Revenue court (Section 176) is for partition, but your case first requires declaration of unequal shares, best done in civil court
• Your documentary evidence is helpful but needs strengthening through surrounding circumstances and witnesses
  
• Brokerage and fencing can be claimed as equitable adjustments
  
• Final partition will be based on value, not just physical measurement
  

Dear client

Your case is legally sound, but the way relief is done needs to be determined.

First, file a partition suit with a declaration of the number of shares (3:1). Since this is agricultural land in Uttarakhand (previously governed by the U.P. laws), the proper method to obtain relief under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act of 1950, is to do so through the Revenues Court (SDM/Tehsildar), and not through a civil court. Section 22B does not apply here.

Second, you have sufficient evidence to support your case, but you need to improve the evidence. For example, you have cheque entries, references to the sale by deed, and the fact that the buyer withdrew money from the bank shortly prior to the registry date all are strong circumstantial evidence supporting your case, whereas the buyer did not provide any evidence documenting her withdrawal and would be difficult for her to submit oral evidence to prove her case. You can further establish your contribution through evidence of witnesses (broker, seller), bank records, and the actions of the other party.

Third, you can claim common expenses incurred such as broker fees and other costs to fence/secure the land; however, courts typically treat these expenses as incidental to the establishment of the right of ownership and do not change ownership shares unless agreed to.

Fourth, with respect to the partition, the Court will ensure that the partition is equitable and not necessarily exact (9m or 27m). The orchard will be valued and taken into consideration with respect to usefulness.

Suggestion: Apply for a status quo order/injunction to halt anyone from receiving an unjust benefit; and rely on prior case law that supports proportional ownership based on contribution to value.