JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. It is desirable to refer shortly to the circumstances, which are somewhat peculiar. The property belonged to a gentleman named Matwatang Dhaoj Prasad Singh. He was possessed of a considerable estate which was heavily indebted, and the estate was taken over by the Court of Wards. The sale was a sale by the Court of Wards. There is abundant evidence to show that for no less than two years prior to the sale, efforts were being made to sell a substantial portion of the estate including the property now in question, in order to liquidate the debts of the ward. There is evidence, which we have no hesitation in believing, that the intention to sell was published in the fullest manner possible. We know ourselves that it is the practice of the Court of Wards to publish the intention of making such sales. It is their duty to do so. Their object is to gain as high a price as they possibly can for the property of the ward. The obvious way of attaining this object is to have as many bidders as possible. Without for the moment referring in detail to the evidence, we have not the least hesitation in holding that all the co-sharers, including the plaintiff in the present suit, knew perfectly well that the property was in the market, and that he knew that all he had to do, if he wanted to purchase the property, was to make an application for that purpose to the Court of Wards. We will now consider for a moment the conduct of the plaintiff after the sale. The sale-deed was executed on the 7th of April 1913. It was registered on the 21st of April of the fame year. The present suit was not instituted until the 16th of April 1914, that is to say, more than a year after the sale and almost a year after the registration. In fact if the suit had been five days later it would have been barred by limitation. One would have expected, if the plaintiff had really wished to purchase this property and had been in a position to do so, he would, immediately after the sale, have complained to the Collector or the manager of the estate that he had a right to purchase the property, and that the sale had been carried out without his knowledge. He did nothing, of the kind. A number of witnesses have been produced, who prove that Ram Ratan amongst other persons was asked to purchase this very property and that he declined to do so. The learned Subordinate Judge has not believed these witnesses. We cannot agree with him. These witnesses for the most part were quite disinterested. They did not gain the property or any benefit by the purchaser being allowed to retain his purchase. A witness of the name of Avadh Bihari Lai was produced on behalf of the plaintiff. His evidence is somewhat shifty. He tried in a half-hearted way to state that no instructions were given to a man called Babu Ram Saran, a sarbarahkar of the Court of Wards, to go round the village and enquire for would-be purchasers, but in cross-examination he had to admit that the Court of Wards had intended to sell the property from the year 1910, and that letters were sent to all the Tahsildars to procure purchasers. He also had to admit that the Tahsildars issued notices to all the big zemindars and the notices were on the record of the Court of Wards. He had further to admit that the Tahsildars had reported the names of persons who were ready to purchase some of the property, but that the name of the plaintiff Ram Ratan was not amongst them. He also had to admit that persons made applications direct to the Court of Wards stating their desire to purchase portions of the property, and that in application was received from Ram Ratan. This is the plaintiff's own witness. The witnesses for the defence deposed to the fact of the publication of the intention to sell, and that the intended sale was proclaimed by beat of drum in different villages. Bearing in mind the practice of the Court of Wards and the fact that the defendant's witnesses are, as we