' This second appeal was directed against the judgment dated 29-3-1974 whereby the learned District Judge accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit of the trial Court and granted a decree in favour of plaintiff-respondent and against the appellant- defendants for possession of land through pre-emption on payment of Rs,4,500 minus the amount deposited, if any, up to 29-4-1974 failing which the suit was to stand dismissed with costs.
2. The only question raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the respondents- plaintiffs having held to have not established themselves as co-sharers in Khata 49 were not entitled to have the decree in respect of the land of Khata Nos. 49/50 out of the land sold vide sale- deed dated 10-21966. Learned trial Court so held in para. 8 of its judgment with reference to the entries of Exh. P.3. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs has nothing to urge to controvert this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is obvious that the suit could therefore, be decreed only with respect to land of Khata No, 51 as the prc-emptor had established themselves to be the co-sharers in the said Khata and the vendee/defendants-appellants A having joined as stranger the principle of sinker would apply to them. This being the position, the impugned decree shall stand amended and the suit shall stand decreed only to the extent of land of Khata No,
51. The suit to the extent of land of Khata No, 49 shall stand dismissed. It is agreed that a sum of Rs,300 will be deducted on account of exclusion of land of Khata No,
49. A sum of Rs,300 will be refunded to respondents-plaintiffs and the remaining will be received by the appellants- vendees. This second appeal stands decided accordingly with no order as to costs.