1. ' This is a second appeal by the plaintiff pre-emptor from the judgments and decrees of the lower Courts whereby the suit for pre-emption of the property in suit was dismissed.
2. ' According to jurisdictional value fixed by the appellant, this appeal is to be heard by a Single Bench and to this effect the statement of the learned counsel for the vendees-respondents was accordingly recorded who has withdrawn from the objection raised in the written statement which was left undetermined by both the Courts below. This being so, the point of value for the purpose of jurisdiction stands determined against the vendees respondents.
3. ' Mst. A. Bibi widow of Ahmad All sold the property in dispute to the vendees-respondents for a consideration of Rs, 25,000. The land in suit stood in ownership of the woman selling the same.
4. ' The plaintiff who is the real brother of the husband of the woman instituted a suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, Mirpur for the property in suit by way of pre-emption on the ground of his being a descendant of a common ancestor. The co-sharership in the property was also pleaded to succeed in the suit. To prove right of prior purchase the plaintiff examined himself as a witness but he was unable to state that the vendor and he both are the descendants of a common ancestor.
5. His statement is to the effect that he is the real brother of the husband of the vendor woman thereby meaning that he has a right of prior purchase through his real brother. This is not the averment of the plaintiff in his suit.
6. ' The second ground for the right of prior purchase was based on cosharership, which does not help him because the vendees-respondents are also the co-sharers in the property, a portion of which was sold by the woman. Admittedly, the vendees-respondents are the co-sharers and their status as such has finally been determined by the Supreme Court between the parties. It was as aforesaid claimed by the plaintiff that he and the vendor being descendants of a common ancestor the former is clothed with the right of pre-emption.
7. ' The evidence led by the plaintiff does not disclose this relationship between the plaintiff and the vendor. There is no proof on record that the plaintiff and vendor come down through a common ancestor. Pre-emptor herein never claimed pre-emption through his brother for the latter being his agnate. That could not be taken advantage of, if at all there was anything to attract right of pre- emption in this way. In the case of sale by a female of land or property to which she has succeeded on a life tenure through her husband, the term agnates shall mean the agnates of the person through whom she has so succeeded. This is not the position in this case. The woman is shown as a full owner of the land in suit and it seems that she has inherited the land as a sharer under Muslim Law of inheritance. The entry in the revenue record vide. `Jamabandi' Exh. P. A. Goes in favour of the woman that this land was not inherited by her as a limited owner but as a full owner for being a widow of Ahmad Ali deceased. If the widow would have been a limited owner and the property being ancestral she would have shared equally with the brothers of her husband. The entry shows that after giving 1/4th to the widow as a sharer; the residue was apportioned in equal shares between the brothers of Ahmad Ali deceased.
8. ' Therefore, in the circumstances above, the suit of the plaintiff-appellant as framed does not stand established. And so the Courts below were right in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant.
9. That being so, there is no force in this appeal which stands dismissed with costs.