Blair and Burkitt, JJ.
1. This is a second appeal of a plaintiff in a preemption suit. The lady who is the pre-emptor and appellant here has open defeated by a finding of the Lower Appellate Court that she has not fully satisfied the requirements of the Muhammadan law in making the talab-i-ishtishhad. The facts are, as found by the Lower Appellate Court, that the lady was-inside her house when she received intelligence of the transaction which gave rise to her pre-emptive right. She at once declared that she was the shaft. That is beyond doubt a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the law as to the immediate demand See Ali Muhammad Khan v. Muhammad Said Husain I.L.R. 18 All. 309.--ED. She thereupon instructed an agent to communicate to the vendee, who was outside the house, her intention of exercising her right. The learned Judge says that certain persons appear t& have accompanied the agent as witnesses. It is admitted that when the second demand was made to the vendee no words were used referring to the prior demand which had been made inside the house. This is found by the Judge to be an insufficient compliance with the law. We think that be was right for the reasons set forth in the judgment of the Full Bench of the Calcutta Court in the case of Rujjub Ali Chopedar v. Chundi Churn Bhadra I.L.R. 17 Cal. 543. The decision of that Court is one in which we concur. We are informed that this ruling has been followed in other cases in this Court.
2. We dismiss the appeal with costs.