Manog Dat vs Lachmi Narain and Another

W. Comer Petheram, C.J.—The plaintiff sued to enforce a right of pre-emption, and his right in the village was acquired on the 3rd September 1881, by purchase and not by inheritance. He was not an old co-sharer, and, as regards the merits, there is no reason why he should succeed, not being such a co-sharer, unless he can show a preferential claim to the defendants. The question which arises is, whether the defendants had acquired rights in the village before the 3rd September 1881. We are of opinion that they had, for the first interest which they acquired was on the 1st September 1881, when they entered into an agreement with the female defendant that, in consideration of their bringing an action for recovery of her share, they should have a moiety. She thus by that agreement transferred, on the 1st September 1881, one-half of what she was to get to them. The present defendants found funds for the two suits, which eventually were compromised, the Musammat getting a less share than she supposed. Then v followed a re-adjustment of the amount of the interest in that share between her and the defendants, and they got a larger share of her interest than had originally been contemplated, but in reality a less share in the village. It cannot, however, be said that their right was not created till then. The real transfer was given effect to on 1st September 1881, and the plaintiff has no right as against the defendants by way of claim for pre-emption.

The Munsif''s judgment is correct and will be restored, this appeal being decreed with costs.