JUDGMENT

Pearson, J. - But the material point for determination in my opinion is whether a valid cause and right of action accrued to Jagraj Singh on the 13thFebruary 1875, and that question I am free and competent to consider u/s 542 of the Procedure Code. I observe that the sale of umeda Singh's share to the defendant did not take place on that date. his share had been sold conditionally, it is true, so long before as the 3rd of May 1867. What happened on the 13th February 1875, was merely that the sale became absolute. No fresh transfer was made, but the character of the transferee's possession was modified by the operation of the terms on which the original transfer had been made. The transaction commenced on the earlier and came to an end on the latter date. no new transaction was effected on the latter. The clause in the wajib-ul-arz, but only failed to redeem it from mortgage4. he was not when the year of grace was expiring in a position to offer the property to Jagraj Singh. He could not have empowered Jagraj Singh to redeem it as his substitute. At the time of conditional sale it is not shown that any right of pre-emption was possessed by the proprietors of mauza Tikarbhan.