JUDGMENT

Sulaiman, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration and possession. The parties to the present suit had jointly instituted a suit for pre-emption and a joint decree was passed in their favour by the trial Court. The pre-emption money was deposited in the name of the present defendant Ram Harakh Misir. The present plaintiff Anrup Misir does not appear to have attempted to deposit any money or to apply to the civil Court for execution of the decree or for delivery of the property to him. Ram Harakh Misir, however, applied for execution in his own favour alleging that the amount had been deposited by him alone. Execution was allowed and the possession was delivered to him of the entire pre-emption property. In spite of an objection raised by Anrup Misir in the revenue Court, Ram Harakh Misir succeeded in obtaining mutation of names. Anrup Misir then filed the present suit for a declaration that he had paid half the pre-emption money and asked for possession of the half share. In his plaint ha did not offer to pay half the amount in case it was found that he had not paid it, but later on his vakil made a statement in the trial Court to that effect.

2. Both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff had not paid a pie to the defendant on account of the pre-emption money as was alleged by him. The first Court decreed the suit on payment of half the amount but the appellate Court has dismissed it in to.

3. The main question raised before us on behalf of the appellant is that when a joint decree for pre-emption had been passed in favour of two plaintiffs, the payment by even one of the plaintiffs would enure for the benefit of both the decree-holders and both would be entitled to equal shares in the property, the defendant at best should recover the half of the amount which the plaintiff did not pay.

4. In order to answer this question it is necessary to consider the true nature of a pre-emption suit. Several persons may be entitled to pre-empt a sale. They may institute separate suits each claiming the whole property and all the suits may be consolidated and their respective rights and priorities be determined, or they may agree to institute a joint suit for pre-emption.

5. Order 20, Rule 14, Civil P.C, provides the form which a pre-emption decree may take. Where the rival claims to preemption have been adjudicated upon, the decree has to specify their respective rights as provided in Sub-clause (2). But where the plaintiffs do not ask the Court to adjudicate upon their respective rights inter se, a joint decree may be passed and if the amount is deposited in compliance with the decree, the defendant has no concern with the way in which the property is to be shared by the plaintiffs

6. But I am unable to hold that the mere fact that a joint decree has been passed in favour of all has the necessary result of passing title to all the joint decree-holders even if only one of them pays the amount. Any pre-emptor is at liberty to withdraw at any stage and he may withdraw even after the decree and before the date fixed for payment. The remaining pre-emptor would then have a right to deposit the whole amount and pre-empt the entire property. I cannot see why a co-plaintiff, who has got a joint decree in his favour should, in spite of a refusal to contribute towards the payment of the purchase-money or even an express desire to withdraw, still be entitled to recover a share of the property on an offer to pay the proportionate amount subsequently. The preemption money has got to be paid within the short time fixed for its payment. A co-plaintiff who refuses to pay the amount within that time cannot be allowed to claim the property, say after 11 years, if he then is in a position to contribute. It therefore seems to me that the rights of the joint decree-holders as to the shares which they are entitled to in the property on account of the payment of the purchase-money, will have to be determined in case a d