JUDGMENT
1. The facts of this case may be briefly stated as follows: On the 17th January 1929 one Panna Lal, who owned a baana 6 pis share, sold a plot comprised is that share, namely, plot No. 177, together with two trees to Sahdeo and others defendants.
2. On the 20th September 1919 Panna Lal sold his entire 1 anna and 6 pies share to the same persons.
3. A suit for pre emption was brought by the plaintiff appellant Ram Govind Pande for the parpose of pre-empting both these sales.
4. It has been held by both the Courts below that thee plaintiff cannot preempt the first sale, that is to siay the sale of tae isolated plot on the ground that he had notice of the sale and had an opportunity of exercising his right to pre-empt which heref used to avail himself of. It must be taken, therefore, for the purposes of the present decision that the first sale is not liable to pre-emption.
5. The question, therefore, remains whether the plaintiff is entitled to succeed in his suit for pre-emption so far as it concerns the sale of the 1 anna 6 pies share which, as we have said, was carried out on the 20th September £919. The finding of tie Court below is that the suit must fail on the ground that the vendees had already become co-sharers in the village by reason of their having purchased the plot No. 177 under tae sale-deed executed on the 17th January 1919.
6. It has been strongly contended here that this purchase did not give the vendees the status of co-sharers in the village (hissedaran miuza) to quote the words of the Wajib-ul-arz.
7. There is a great deal of case-law in the, decisions of this Court regarding the position of persons who have-purchased isolated plots of land and the question has arisen time and again for decision whether or not the purchasers of such plots are for the purposes of pre-emption to be deemed co-sharers in the village. 1 he cases fall into different categories which depend upon the nature of the land which is purchased. We have for example cases of purchases of plots of maufaland not assessed to revenue. Again we have other cases known as arazi date; cases where sales have been made of certain isolated plots of land which are assessed to revenue bit which nevertheless a:-e outside the mahal.
8. And lastly, we have cases like the present where a plot sold is within the mahal and forms a portion of a defined share in the village, that is to say, a defined area of land forming part of a dennite share assessed to revenue.
9. This latter class of cases has been dealt within a series of decisions beginning with the Fall Bench decision of the Court in Sifiar Ali v. Dasi Muhammad 120 A. 426 : A.W.N. (1890) 117 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1016 (F.B.). In that case it was held that where a person purchased a plot of land situated within share in a village he was to be, deemed a co-sharer in the village and it was held in the case reported as Dakhni Din v. Rahim un-nissa 16 A. 412 : A.W.N. (1894) 134 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 268 that such a person would be treated as a co sharer in the village even though his name did not appear in the revenue papers.
10. Another case on this point is to be found in Ali Husain Khan v. Tasadauq Husain Khan 2 A.L.J. 612 : 28 A. 124 : A.W.N. (1905) 219. That case is so far as we can see, on the same footing as the ca se with which we are now concerned. It is not necessary for us to refer to the decisions on the other classes of cases for clearly they would not be applicable in the present instance. Here we a re dealing with a plot of land comprised in a 1 anna 0 ries share which is assessed separately to revenue, and which is record separately in the klewcit. That being so, the case falls within the principle Laid down in Ali Husain Khan v. Tasadduq Husain Khan 2 A.L.J. 612 : 28 A. 124 : A.W.N. (1905) 219. It is true that there have been other decisions of this Court which seem to point in a contrary direction are of these to which we have been refened is to be found in Bidhata Ram v. Ram Cheri 15 Ind. Cas. 251. But there the facts are not fully set out and it is impossible to gather from the langauge of the report what was the particular nature of the report in question in that case. We are satisfied, therefore, with the decision of the Court below in this particular case that the vendees who purchased this plot No. 177 on the 17th January 1919 were entitled to claim the status of his sedaran maitzi and that being so, we "hold that the suit of the plaintiff was rightly dismissed. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.