(1.) This is a pre-emption appeal arising out of rather peculiar circumstances.
(2.) For the disposal of the suit we must take the plaintiff's allegations as correct, for they have not yet been adjudicated upon. The plaintiff's case was that there was a sale some time in 1917 and he brought a suit for pre-emption. After the sale some members of the family of the vendors brought suits to have the sale- deed set aside. Their suits succeeded and by an agreement on account of the success of the suits the pre-emption suit was dismissed. The plaintiff has since discovered that the plaintiffs in the suits for the cancellation of the sale-deed never recovered possession from the vendees and the vendees are still in possession. The inference that the plaintiff draws is that the two suits were collusive as between the relations of the vendor and the vendees. He now claims pre-emption.
(3.) The Court of first instance heard evidence on the question of custom of preemption and held that no custom of preemption existed under the wajib-ul-arz on which the claim was based. The lower appellate Court upheld this decision.