1. The only question for determination in this appeal is whether or not the Court below was, right in holding that the plaintiff-appellants had no right of pre-emption.
2. It appears that the property, which forms the subject-matter of the suit, is situated in a certain village in which, undoubtedly the plaintiffs are co-sharers. It is apparent, however, that, sometime ago, a perfect partition was carried out in this village, the result of which was the erection of a number of mahals, and it is an admitted fact that, under the present constitution of the village, the property in dispute lies in a mahal in which the plaintiffs have no rights according to what was decided when the partition took place.
3. The plaintiffs in the Court below relied upon the wajib-ul-arz which was prepared for the period from 1278 to 1307 Fasli. In this wajib-ul-arz it was, no doubt, provided that, in the last resort, persons, who were co-sharers in the village, were to have a right of pre-emption.
4. We have already stated that, since this document was prepared at the time of the settlement already referred to, a perfect partition of the village has taken place.
5. The learned Judge of the Court below has referred to a large number of rulings beginning with a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Dalganjan Singh v. Kalka Singh 22 A. 1 : A.W.N. (sic) 111 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1035. In that case the law laid down is that a person, who is merely a hissadar, has no right to preempt the sale of a share sold in a mahal in which he himself is not a co-sharer.
6. The learned Subordinate Judge refers to other cases of this Court subsequent to the date of decision of the Full Bench case in which a different view was taken. Later on, however, it seems that the trend of decisions took another turn and reverted in the direction of the view which was taken by the Full Bench in Dalganjan Singh v. Kalka Singh 22 A. 1 : A.W.N. (sic) 111 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1035. It seems to us that, having regard to these recent decisions which are apparently the decisions of a Special Bench which was created in this Court to deal with pre-emption cases so as to procure uniformity of decision, we must hold that the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge is correct. The ratio decidendi of these cases is as described by the learned Subordinate Judge in his judgment, namely, that after a perfect partition there is no community of interest between this co-sharers of one mahal and, the co-sharers of another mahal and none of them can, in any sense of the word, be regarded as a co-sharer of the property of the others.
7. We think this is a right decision and ought to be upheld. We accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs.