JUDGMENT

1. In our opinion this appeal must be allowed, the decree of the lower appellate Court set aside, and the decree of the Court of first instance restored. The suit was a suit for pre-emption of an area of 18 biswas comprised on a Plot No. 94. It is clear on all hands that at one time, at any rate this Plot No. 94 formed a portion of a patti called "Patti Haider Husain" in which the plaintiff-pre-emptor is a co-sharer and in which the vendee is not.

2. It is stated that in consequence of some litigation which took place in the year 1918 this area of 18 biswas came to one Nawab Husain, and it is further stated that by reason of a compromise which was arrived at between the persons who were owners of this patti Nawab Husain was given a proprietary interest in these 18 biswas of land. It was also stated by counsel in the trial Court that revenue had been assessed on these 18 biswas but it was not known whether the revenue had been paid or not.

3. The lower appellate Court seems to have thought that by reason of these proceedings in the year 1918 this area of 18 biswas had become what is known as haqiat mutafarriqa or, to adopt the expression used in the Agra Pre-emption Act, a pet