JUDGMENT : BLAIR, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The cause of action was a mortgage made by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the other defendants. The date of the mortgage is the 17th of September, 1897. The share mortgaged was two annas odd. The suit was filed on the 14th of October, 1901. Another suit for pre emption upon a sale, dated March 31st, 1901, between the same vendors and vendees was brought and finally decided on the 9th of August, 1901. The order in that case was that the plaintiffs should be allowed to enter into possession of the property on payment by them of Rs. 499 within two months, otherwise the suit should stand dismissed. The money was not paid, and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Five days after that dismissal, the present suit was brought. In consequence of the dismissal, the vendees in the suit in which such dismissal took place, became share-holders in the mahal. It was therefore contended, in the Court of first instance that the vendees having thus become share-holders, the plaintiffs had as against them no preferential right to pre-empt, and the Court of first instance so found. Upon appeal the lower appellate Court reversed the finding, holding that the vendees having acquired no right at the date of the execution of the mortgage which formed the cause of action had not equal rights with the plaintiffs at the date of the mortgage. 2. In support of this view, the Judge relied on the case of Sheo Narayan v. Hira, [1886] I.L.R., 7 All., 535. That case in our opinion has no bearing on the matter in issue. We have had our attention called to two cases. One is the case of Janki Prasad v. Ishwar Dass, [1899] I.L.R., 21 All, 374 which is a Full Bench ruling, the other is the case of Rom Gopal v. Piari Lal, [1899] I.L.R., 21 All., 441. That case in our opinion has no bearing on the matter in issue. We have had our attention called to two cases. One is the case of Janki Prasad v. Ishwar Dass, [1899] I.L.R., 21 All, 374 which is a Full Bench ruling, the other is the case of Rom Gopal v. Piari Lal, [1899] I.L.R., 21 All., 441. In the former case the head note runs as follows:— “In order that a suit for pre-emption may be successfully maintained, it is necessary not only that a cause of action should arise in favour of the pre-emptor at the time of the sale on which the suit is based but that such cause of action should subsist at the time when the suit is brought.” The other case is the converse of the case just mentioned. Its head note runs as follows:— “Where a plaintiff, who had filed a suit for pre-emption, based on the provisions of a wajib-ul-aiz, lost during the pendency of the suit, the right to pre-empt by reason of the mahal in which both properties were originally comprised, having become the subject of a perfect partition, it was held that the suit for pre-emption should be dismissed.” It seems to us that the principle of these rulings is perfectly sound and has a direct bearing on the present case. We think it immaterial that, the defendants have had no share in the mahal at the date when the mortgage was executed. Beyond doubt, by the dismissal of the previous, suit they had acquired a good right in the mahal on the date of the institution of the present suit. It appears to us that the lower appellate Court was wrong and the Court of first instance was right. We decree this appeal, and, setting aside the order of the Court below, restore the decree of the Court of first instance with costs in all Courts.