JUDGMENT

1. We think the decision of the learned District Judge in this case is erroneous and must be set aside.

2. The facts are that a suit for pre-emption was brought by two plaintiffs Gobardhan Brahman and Raghubar Thakur, in respect of a certain sale of property which had been made by defendant No. 3. The allegation was that this sale had been made to a stranger and that the plaintiffs had a right to pre-empt.

3. When the case came into Court the defence taken was that the first plaintiff in the suit was not a co-sharer and, therefore, not entitled to claim pre-emption.

4. It seems to have been admitted that prior to the 10th of July 1917 the first plaintiff Gobardhan Brahman had no share in this village. On the 10th July 1917 there was executed in his favour a deed which purports to be a sale-deed. This was executed apparently by one Gaya Din Thakur, father of plaintiff No. 2, Raghubar Thakur.

5. On the following day, i.e., the 11th July 1917, another document was executed by Gobardhan, the purchaser, by which he agreed to allow his vendor of the previous day an option to have a re-conveyance of the property.

6. With respect to this transaction the allegation in the written stateme