1. It is found that there was no waiver on the defendant's part of his right of pre-emption. It is also found that he was apprised of the fact that an auction sale of the property was about to take place on the 17th October. Notice to that effect was given to him by the decree-holder, the present plaintiff and ultimate purchaser at the sale. Such being the facts of the case it appears to us that when the property was put up for sale the defendant had clearly not lost his right of pre-emption. According to the decision in Cheria Krishnan v. Vishnu I. L. R 5 M 198 he was entitled to know the price for which the property was being offered for sale in order that he might make up his mind whether or not he would buy. Until he had that information, he was not put to his election. In the case cited and relied on for the appellants, Ammotti Haji v. Kunhayen Kutti I. L. R 15 M 480 it may be that there was evidence on which it could be held that the ottidar had been placed in a position to elect. In the present case there are no such facts and it seems to us unreasonable to hold that an ottidar having notice of an execution sale is bound to attend the sale and claim the property from the bidder to whom it is knocked down and is not at liberty to make the same claim the next day. It might as well be contended that he is bound to be present at negotiations for a private sale on the penalty of losing his right of pre-emption, if absent. We observe that the decision in I. L. R 5 M 198 is not overruled in the latter case and is not even mentioned by Muthusami Aiyar, J.
2. In our opinion that case cannot be distinguished from the present. The result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs.