W. Comer Petheram, C.J.
1. I think that the appeal must be dismissed. The Judge has dismissed the suit upon the ground that one of the plaintiffs is not a co-sharer in the village, and had no right to sue. The relief claimed in the plaint is a joint one, and one of the plaintiffs cannot succeed without amending the plaint, and striking out the name of the other plaintiff. The facts upon which the judgment of the Judge is founded are as follows: One of the plaintiffs, Musammat Lado, is the widow of one of the co-sharers of the village. Her husband at his death was a member of a joint Hindu family; his widow, Musammat Lado, therefore, did not succeed to the estate of her husband, which was inherited by the other members of the family. She had only a right of maintenance out of the estate of her late husband; she was therefore not a co-sharer in the village, and therefore had no right to claim pre-emption. She must, for the purposes of this suit, be regarded as a stranger.
2. Now, in the plaint, both the plaintiffs allege themselves to be jointly interested in the village, and they jointly claimed pre-emption. One of them, Musammat Lado, is not entitled to claim pre-emption, and the other plaintiff therefore cannot claim pre-emption entirely on his own account without amending the plaint. Under a Full Bench ruling of this Court--Damodar Das v. Gokal Chand Ante p. 79 the plaint cannot be amended at this time of day: with the petition as it now stands, the plaintiffs cannot succeed. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
3. I am of the same opinion.