JUDGMENT

Martineau, J. - This is a pre-emption case and the question in dispute is, whether the building which the plaintiff seeks to pre-empt is a shop as described in the sale-deed. The lower appellate Court has held, differing from the view taken by the first Court, that it is not a shop, and it has remanded the ease for the decision of the remining issues. The vendee has presented a second appeal to this Court.

2. It is pointed out that in a plan which the plaintiff got prepared in 1917, when he applied to the Municipal Committee for sanction to some additions that he wished to make to his house, the building in dispute was mentioned as a shop. This is, however, of no importance as the plaintiff very likely signed and filed the plan without troubling to see how the building adjoining his house had been described in it. The game remarks apply with regard to a plan filed by the plaintiff in 1905. What has to be determined is simply the purpose for which the building in suit was used, and this purpose is clear from the evidence produced on both sides, which shows that the building has been rented by the firm of Ram Lal-Ishar Das, who stored their sleepers in it, and that, formerly, it was used for storing grain. No goods were sold in the building, and, this being so, the building cannot be said to be a shop, which, as was stated in Bhamba Ram v. Allah Bakhsh (1915) 69 P.R. 1915 denotes a building or an apartment which is primarily used for buying and selling goods. Counsel for the appellant has referred to Attar Singh v. Sant Singh (1906) 113 P.R. 1906 in which warehouses attached to shops were regarded as being in the nature of shop property, but the building now in dispute is not attached to a shop, although some shop-keepers have rented it and have been using it for storing their goods.

3. It is urged that if, as was held by the lower appellate Court, the vendee had to prove that the building was a shop he should have been given an opportunity of producing further evidence since the onus had been placed by the first Court on the plaintiff, but I do not see that there is any necessity for a remand since it is not disputed that the building has been used merely for the storage of goods, and the question is only whether a building used for such a purpose is a shop.

4. I agree with the lower appellate Court that the building in suit is not a shop, and I accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.