1. THIS is a petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The purchasers are the petitioners in a matter relating to pre-emption under section 26f of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The opposite Party No. 1 is the pre-emptor.

2. THE factual position on the findings of the courts below is that the purchasers petitioners, the pre-emptor opposite party No. 1 and the vendor amongst others were co-sharers of a holding. It is also clear that the petitioners got their share in the holding by purchase. The Courts below allowed the application for pre-emption. The question that was urged in the courts below was whether the opposite party pre-emptor was a co-sharer of the holding or not. That being the single question, the Courts answered that question in the positive and allowed pre-emption. As I have stated above, on the findings of the Courts below it cannot be challenged in this court that the opposite party No. 1, the pre-emptor, was not a co-sharer of the holding. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the application should have been allowed.

It has been urged in this Court that the opposite party No. 1 may be a co-sharer, but the transfer was to the petitioners and th