JUDGMENT : Stanley, J. :- This appeal arises out of a pre-emption decree. Three different suits were instituted for pre-emption of property which was purchased by the vendees Jhamman, Behari and Gayan and there were six parties claiming pre-emption One suit was instituted by Bindraban, another suit by Sakha and another, and the third suit by Dharampal and two others. Bindraban did not question the consideration named in the deed. The other pre-emptors did question it, and alleged that the recorded consideration was fictitious. The right of pre-emption was not disputed, and it was admitted that all the pre-emptors were entitled to pre-empt in equal degrees. The Court of first instance found that the true consideration was a sum of Rs. 1,998-10-0, and this finding was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Inasmuch as the parties were all alike interested in the questions before the Court, with their consent, the three suits were disposed of together and a single judgment was pronounced. According to that judgment each of the plaintiffs in the different suits was declared entitled to pre-empt a proportionate part on payment of a proportionate part of the price, Rs. 1,998-10-0. The present appeal was preferred by the defendants, Jhamman, Behari and Gayan, the vendees, on the ground that the true consideration for the sale was a very much larger sum than that which had been found by the decrees. They were met by the arguments that inasmuch as they were parties to the other suits which were instituted by the co-pre-emptors and did not appeal on the question of consideration in those suits, they were debarred from maintaining an appeal on the ground that the matter was res judicata. The learned District Judge yielded to this contention. We cannot agree with him. In the first place the matter in dispute, in the present appeal was not in issue in any former suit. It was determined in the suit from the decree in which the present appeal has been preferred. Moreover, there never was a conflict between the rival pre-emptors as to the amount of the consideration. The interest the pre-emptors was identical, namely, to show that the consideration was as small as possible. The case upon which reliance has been placed by the District Judge appears to us not to apply. Moreover, there never was a conflict between the rival pre-emptors as to the amount of the consideration. The interest the pre-emptors was identical, namely, to show that the consideration was as small as possible. The case upon which reliance has been placed by the District Judge appears to us not to apply. In that suit, the two claimants for pre-emption, who had instituted separate suits, were found not to have equal rights to pre-empt. 2. One had a preferential claim to pre-empt, and the other only a secondary claim. Consequently, in the judgment which was passed; the plaintiff who had the preferential claim was declared to have a right of pre-emption superior to the other plaintiff and only in the event of his failing to carry out pre-emption, was the other plaintiff declared to be entitled to pre-empt. The pre-emptive property was the same. In the present case all the pre-emptors are declared to have an equal right to pre-empt, and therefore each of them has been declared entitled to pre-empt a separate part of the property. For these reasons we must allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court, and in as much as that Court has decided the appeal on the ground that it was barred as being res judicata, we remand the case under the provisions of section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure with directions that the appeal be replaced on the file of pending appeals and be disposed of on the merits; the costs here and hitherto will abide the event.