JUDGMENT

Sulaiman, J. - Second Appeals Nos. 1792, 1793, 1794 and 1795 are defendants' appeals and are connected with each other. On 3rd April 1925, a sale deed of five annas four pies share in two mahals of mauza Lohradih was executed by Jagpat Singh in favour of Dallu Singh was Rs. 1,000. On the same date a perpetual lease was executed by the same person in favour of Sukhdeo Singh, who was a nephew of the vendee. This lease related to sir lands and was in lieu of a premium of Rs. 3,000 fixing an annual rent of Rs. 90, By a subsequent compromise, dated 14th October 1925, in a suit brought by the transferrer to set aside these two transfers it was ultimately agreed to return the share in one mahal to the transferrer, the transferee retaining the share in mahal Katwaru only. It is this share which is in dispute in these appeals.

2. The present plaintiffs instituted a suit (out of which S.A. No. 1792 arises) to pre-empt both the sale and the perpetual lease of the shares in mahal Katwaru, alleging that the two were part and parcel of one transaction and constituted a single transaction of sale. They also alleged that the subsequent compromise was a fraudulent device and was a mere paper transaction.

3. In order to meet the claim the defendants obtained a deed of gift of a share in mahal Katwaru from one Baij Nath on 19th April 1926, while the pre-emption suit was pending, and the claim was resisted on the strength of this deed of gift. Second appeal No. 1793 arises out of this suit to avoid the deed of gift.

4. The plaintiffs also instituted a suit to pre-empt the transfer under this deed of gift, alleging that, though ostensibly a gift, it was in reality a sale transaction. Second appeal No. 1795 arises out of this second suit for pre-emption.

5. Subsequently, there was another sale deed, dated 18th September, 1926, under which another share was transferred to the vendees for Rs. 800 in mahal Katwaru. A suit for pre-emption was instituted by the present plaintiffs to claim this share also. Second appeal No. 1794 arises out of this third suit for pre-emption.

6. The lower appellate Court has found as a fact that the gift of 19th April 1926, was in reality a sale transaction, and being a transfer of joint family property without legal necessity, was not binding on the minor. It has accordingly set aside that sale. It has further found that the sale and the lease of 3rd April 1925, were part and parcel of one single transaction in favour of the same joint family, the total consideration being Rs. 4,000. It has then, assuming that the compromise of 14th October 1925, was a good one, held that the vendees who have actually parted with Rs. 4,000 and retained only the share in mahal Katwaru, are entitled to recover that amount from the plaintiffs.

7. It seems to us that the finding that the gift was voidable at the instance of the son of Baij Nath cannot be disturbed in second appeal. The gift having been set aside, the plea based on it must also lose its force. It is not also possible to interfere with the finding that the two transactions of the same date in favour of the same family made by the same parson were not part and parcel of one and the same transaction, two documents instead of one having been used to handicap the pre-emptor. We must accept the finding that the real intention of the parties was to sell the share in mahal Katwaru to the defendants.

8. The only point urged on behalf of the plaintiffs which remains for consideration is whether a right of pre-emption exists in the case of the present vendee appellants.

9. Mauza Lohradih was originally a part of the family domain of His Highness the Maharaja of Benares. In 1911 it came under the direct administration of the Governor of the United Provinces. The Maharaja of Benares is now recognized as the zamindar of this village and is recorded as the superior proprietor malike ala in the khewat. The plaintiffs and the vendor were recorded as manzooridars and classed as inferior propri