JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption and two questions arise for consideration. The first is whether a suit for pre-emption brought against an ostensible vendee without impleading the real purchaser is maintainable. The second is whether the plaintiff is entitled to preference as against the vendee real or ostensible. The Court of first instance was of opinion that the suit could not be entertained against an ostensible purchaser without the real purchaser being made a party to the suit. The lower appellate Court was however of opinion that the real vendee could not take advantage of a benami transaction to defeat the claim of the plaintiff, though he was not made a party to the suit. It then proceeded to consider whether the plaintiff was entitled to a preferential right as against the real vendee, and came to the conclusion that he was entitled to such a preference. A decree for pre-emption was accordingly awarded to the plaintiff subject to the payment of a sum of Rs. 300 in respect of each of the sales which form the subject of pre-emption.

2. It is a well-settled rule that a suit against a benamidar binds the benamidar as much as the real purchaser, even