1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. According to the entry in the wajib-ul-arz the first right is with qarabatdaran karibi; the second, with hissedaran karibi; third, hissedaran thok and fourth, hissedaran in another thok. The plaintiff's suit has been dismissed on the ground that the vendee is qarabatdar karibi whilst he is not--being eight degrees removed. The plaintiff, according to his own allegations and apparently in the opinion of the Court, was a co-sharer in the mahal in which at least a portion of the property was situate. The question then arises, whether the defendant-vendee can be said to be qarabatdar karibi. He is the son-in-law of the vendor. This means that he is no blood relation whatever of the vendor. Bearing in mind that in Hindu families the daughter marries into an entirely different family and that she becomes a member of that family and to a large extent ceases to be a member of her own family from the time of her marriage, and bearing in mind also that the idea of pre-emption is to keep the property in the hands of those persons who are already part of the village community, we do not think that the vendee can be said to be 'qarabatdar karibi.' The son-in-law is no heir in a Hindu family. No doubt in another case which was decided upon its own facts and circumstances, it was held that an aunt was 'rishtedar karibi.' In cases of females as we have already pointed out, they become members of the families into which they marry. The cases are, therefore, distinguishable. We allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of both the Courts below and remand the case to the lower Appellate Court with directions to re-admit the appeal upon its original number in the file and proceed to hear and determine the same according to law. Costs here and heretofore will be costs in the cause.