1. We have heard the learned Counsel in these appeals and are of opinion tint they must fail. The point for decision seems to us to be covered by authority.
2. The facts of the case as found by the Court below may be briefly stated as follows.
3. One Mehadeo Prasad had three sons, Kando Prasad, Brijnaudan, and Newal Rai.
3. According to the pedigree the line of Brijnandan had become extinct. The first plaintiff in the case, Udit Narain Lai, is the son of Kando Prasad, and the second plaintiff is Musammat Ram Kali who is the widow of Suraj Prasad son of Hewal Rai: Suraj Prasad is said to have died in 1904. It is to he noted that Suraj Prasad left surviving him a brother named Hirbans.
2. These two plaintiffs joined in a suit for pre-emption claiming a preferential right on the ground that they were co--sharers in the village.
3. Their suit has failed on the grounds:
(i) That Musammat Ram Kali is not a co-sharer in the village but, for the purposes of pre-emption, a stranger;
(2) That Udit Narain Lal although he is a co-sharer in the village has lost his right for pre-emption by joining with him a stranger in the present suit.
4. These findings are based upon the following considerations. It was pleaded in the Courts below that Suraj Prasad and his brother Harbans were members of a joint Hindu family and that consequently when Suraj Prasad died in 1904 the whole of his interest in the property passed by survivorship to Harbans. It was pointed out that this being so Musammat Ram Kali could net claim to have any interest in the property as a co-sharer. She might under the Hindu Law be entitled, as the widow of Suraj Prasad, to maintenance, but it was held that she had no interest which would confer upon her the status of a co-sharer. This finding as to the position of Musammat Ram Kali was supported by reference to a case which was decided in Karan Singh v. Muhammad Ismail Khan 7 A. 860 : A.W.N. (1885) 247 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 945. We are satisfied that the lower Appellate Court was right in following this judgment and there is no ground for distinguishing between that case and the present case.
5. This case is also an authority for the proposition that a plaintiff who has in himself a right to claim pre-emption may lose that right by joining in a suit along with a person who is a stranger to the property and has no such light. It seems to is, therefore, that, the view taken by the Court below is fully sup ported by the authority just referred and from which we see no reason to differ. The result is that both the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs including fees in this Court en the higher scale.