Both the lower Courts found that the othidar in this case was entitled to a right of pre-emption by paying a reasonable price to. the mortgagor selling the properties and that the price need not be the price which is offered by a stranger.

In support of his contention that this raises a point of law and that the price which the mortgagor ought to receive is the price which is offered by a stranger, the learned advocate for the appellant relied upon five decisions. The first decision is Cheria.Krishnan v. Vishnu1, decided by Kernan and Kindersley, JJ. In this decision it was held that

“an otti mortgagee, if he avails himself of his right of pre-emption, must pay whatever sum is bona fide offered to the jenmi for his equity of redemption; but the ottiholder is entitled to be fully informed as to the circumstances and amount of the offer before electing to buy; public notice of and, the option of bidding at, a court-sale of the jenmi’s right do not constitute a valid offer of preemption so as to deprive the ottiholder of his right of pre-emption, if he does not purchase the jenmi’s rights.”

This is based on the principle that the ottiholder should not be driven to give any fanc