W. Comer Petheram, C.J.
1. The question before us is whether, assuming that the sons in a joint Hindu family are to be regarded as co-sharers, they are not to be regarded as recorded co-sharers. To me it seems that the question answers itself. It is virtually asking whether many equal co-sharers are to be considered as having equal rights, and I shall hold that they have, until the contrary is shown. To say that the defendants are precluded from exercising their rights appears to me to be idle and contrary to justice; and I have no hesitation in holding that all the co-sharers, whether signatories of the wajih-ul-arz or not, have equal rights, both in respect of pre-emption and in other respects.
2. I am of the same opinion.
3. I am of the same opinion.
4. I also concur, but I only wish be observe that I have seen cases in which it is said in the wajib-ul-arz that the recorded share-holders shall be entitled to claim the right of pre-emption. If that had been the case here, I might perhaps have been disposed to hold that co-sharers whose names were not recorded in the revenue papers were debarred from exercising the right; but in the wajib-ul-arz now in question no such expression occurs, and therefore the answer which the learned Chief Justice has given fully applies to the case.
5. I have no hesitation in answering the question in the affirmative.