ORDER R.M. Sahai, J. - In this petition directed against the order passed by Additional District Judge dismissing petitioners appeal under Section 13 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act the question is whether the sale deed executed after the prescribed date has been ignored on relevant considerations. 2. Admittedly all the three sale deeds were executed after 24-1-1971, the date prescribed under the Act. To bring his case within the proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act the petitioner apart from himself, examined the transferee on oath. He also filed a receipt showing purchase of tractor in August 1972. This was done obviously to establish the bona fide of the transfer. 3. The Additional District Judge refused to , extend the benefit of the proviso as the consideration was inadequate and there was lack of good faith. The finding on inadequacy of consideration is based without consideration of any evidence. He inferred from the failure of the petitioner to file exemplars that the) price was inadequate. Exemplars may be a piece of evidence to prove adequacy of consideration but they are not conclusive. Even in land acquisition cases they are taken only as a piece of evidence which has to be considered along with other evidence on record. The appellate Court on the mere non-filing of the exemplar drew an inference against the petitioner and did not consider die oral evidence for whatever worth it was. The finding cannot be sustained as it is based on considerations which cannot be considered to be relevant. 4. Equally unsustainable is the finding on good faith as the sale deeds did not mention the necessity nor the purpose disclosed was the purchase of Tractor. The appellate court inferred that the transfer was to defeat the provisions of the Act. Necessity to transfer is one thing and mention of necessity in sale deed is another. It is open to a tenure-holder to establish necessity by evidence oral and documentary. The mention of purpose in the sale deed may be relevant but its non-mention does not give rise to any presumption of lack of honesty. Good faith and necessity are not the same thing. A transfer without necessity may yet be bona fide and without fraud. Necessity is an aspect to strengthen good faith but its absence cannot mean fraud or deceit. Good faith and necessity are not the same thing. A transfer without necessity may yet be bona fide and without fraud. Necessity is an aspect to strengthen good faith but its absence cannot mean fraud or deceit. The proviso of the section does not require tenure-holder to establish necessity. It may be a circumstance to conclude whether the transfer was bona fide but merely because the petitioner failed to mention necessity cannot give rise to an inference that the transaction was not in good faith particularly when the petitioner examined witnesses and produced a receipt for the purchase of tractor. Whatever worth they may be but they cannot be ignored on the misconception that as necessity has not been disclosed in the sale deed the lack of bona fide should be inferred. The finding therefore cannot be sustained. 5. It was next contended that plot No. 79 was grove. Reliance was placed on CH form No. 41. The appellate court however examined the evidence consisting of the revenue extract, the inspection note of the Tahsildar and the CH Form No. 41 and recorded a finding that crops were raised in this plot. The finding being based on evidence cannot be said to suffer from any error of law. 6. The last argument raised was that the petitioner exercised the choice before the Prescribed Authority. In appeal, however, he moved an amendment application altering his choice which was allowed by the Additional District Judge but while passing the order he did not grant him the benefit. The allegations made in para. 9 of the Writ Petition in this connection have not been denied on behalf of the State. The District Judge having allowed the amendment application should have accepted choice exercised by the petitioner. 7. The result is that this petition succeeds in part and it is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the Additional District Judge is quashed. He is directed to decide whether the transfer executed by the three registered sale deeds was in good faith. After deciding if he comes to the conclusion that some land has to be declared as surplus he must accept the choice as exercised by the petitioner in his amendment application which was allowed by him by this order dated 21st June, 1975. 8. In view of the divided success the parties shall bear their own costs. 9. After deciding if he comes to the conclusion that some land has to be declared as surplus he must accept the choice as exercised by the petitioner in his amendment application which was allowed by him by this order dated 21st June, 1975. 8. In view of the divided success the parties shall bear their own costs. 9. The amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the interim order dated 3-3-1976 shall continue to remain in deposit. In case no surplus land is found the petitioner shall be entitled to refund of it But if the surplus is declared the State shall be entitled to appropriate only after establishing its claim under rules. The petitioner shall be entitled to refund of the balance if any.