The right of pre-emption is not a personal right, and it attaches to land and runs with the land though it is not a right to or in land.

Mehar Singh, J.

1. Three sales of land were effected by Dhara Singh in favour of Hazari. Amar Singh and Bhan Singh, appellants-vendees. The first sale was on September 20, 1960, of 27 Kanals and 4 Marias, the second was on November 23, 1960, of 36 Kanals and 19 Marias, and the third was on March 6, 1961, of 33 Kanals and 18 Marias. Neki, deceased-plaintiff was Dhara Singhs fathers brother. On the basis of such relationship he pre-empted the three sales under Section 15 (b), thirdly, of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (Punjab Act 1 of 1913) and in all the three suits he succeeded in the trial Court. The appellants-vendees failed in the first appellate Court.

2. There were three second appeals in the three suits by the appellants-vendees in this Court. While those appeals were pending Neki, deceased-plaintiff, died on April, 7, 1963. After his death the appellants-vendees in each one of their three second appeals moved an application under Order 22, Rules 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure to bring on the records of the appeals the legal representatives of Neki, deceased--plaintiff Three legal representatives have been named. The first is Dhara Singh vendor, and the other two are the sons of this vendor. One of his sons named Ram Kishan had himself instituted pre-emption suits to preempt the sales and after having obtained decrees on compromise in those suits, he not having complied with the terms of the decrees, it was Neki, deceased-plaintiff, who succeeded in his claims. The reason for bringing Dhara Singh vendor on the records as legal representative of Neki, deceased-plaintiff, is that he is the nearest collateral relation entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased-plaintiff. In the case of one son of this vendor named Balbir Singh, in the application it is stated that there is a will made by the deceased-plaintiff in his favour. The second son of the vendor has also been impleaded along with his brother and father. So at least Dhara Singh vendor has been impleaded because he is an heir to the estate of Neki, deceased-plaintiff, being at No. VII in Class II in the schedule under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Act 30 of 1956), and his son Balbir Singh has been impleaded because of his possible and likely claim under a will in his favour by the deceased-plaintiff. The decrees of the trial Court are of November 7, 1962. and those of the Court of first appeal of January, 30. 1963. In between, and while the appeals were pending in the first appellate Court, on December 5, 1962, Neki deceased-plaintiff, transferred the lands, the subject-matter of the suits, to respondents in those appeals other than Neki. deceased-plaintiff, as represented by Dhara Singh vendor and the two sons of the last named, Ram Kishan and Balbir Singh Those respondents, who may for the sake of convenience be described as second vendees, have become parties only at the stage of the second appeals. A pre-emption decree is in the nature of things a conditional decree and it has been stated at the bar that excepting the decree concerning the sale of 33 Kanals and 18 Marias on March 6. 1961, the terms of the other two decrees were complied with by the pre-emptor. Neki deceased-plaintiff. In other words, the deceased-plaintiff made payment of the amounts under those two decrees in the terms of the decrees Although the exact date is not known but it has been said that the payments were made within the time given in the decrees In regard to the third sale of 33 Kanals and 18 Marias which was effected on March 6, 1961, it has been stated that there is a dispute pending between the parties in the executing Court whether or not the deceased-plaintiff deposited the amount under the decree in the terms of the decree and within the time prescribed in it. This however, is not going to make any difference to the decision of the question, the matter of contention, in these appeals. The reason is this, if the deceased plaintiff did not com