1. We have beard the learned Counsel or the appellant in this case. The appellant is the purchaser.
2. It appears that on the 16th June, 1922, the 2nd and 3rd defendants sold the-property in suit to the lab defendant. The plaintiff then brought his suit for preemption and after the institution of the suit and while the suit was pending the purchaser reconvened the property to the vendor.
3. Both the Courts below have allowed the plaintiff's claim and given him a decree for pre-emption. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court was of opinion that inasmuch as the purchaser had during the pendency of the suit re-conveyed the property to the vendor that transaction could not affect the result of the suit inasmuch as the doctrine of lis pendens applied. In our opinion that was a correct view to take. We have been, referred to a good many rulings of this-Court. But it has been held that the doctrine of lis pendens does apply to preemption suit and it has been so applied it many cases. Here there can be no doubt as to the propriety of its application.
4. Mr. Baleshwari Prasad for the appellant has referred us to the casa of Herkeshi v. Mewa Ram A.I.R. 1923 All. 294 which is a decision-of the pre-emption Bench of this Court. It is sufficient to say that that case can be distinguished on the facts from the casa now before us. As authority for the view that the doctrine of lis pendens applies to a suit of this kind we need only refer to the case of Ghasity v. Govind Das (1908) 30 All. 467 and to the still more recent decision of a Bench of this Court in Kamta Prasad v. Ram Jag (1914) 36 All. 60.
5. This appeal fails and is dismissed witta costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.