JUDGMENT : Banerji, J.:— This is an appeal against the decree of the Court below dismissing the plaintiff's claim for pre-emption based upon the Muhammadan law on the ground that the plaintiff had not performed the talab-i-ishtishhad in compliance with the rules of Mohammedan law. We think that the learned Judge of the Court below was right. The plaintiff was bound not only to make an immediate demand, but also to make a second demand by invoking witnesses. In this case what, took place was that the first and second demands were made in the presence of certain persons. Those persons were not taken to the spot, nor were they asked to be witnesses to the demand. 2. They were persons who simply happened to be present. That being so, the talab-i-ishtishhad was not performed in the manner required by Mohammedan law as laid down in Chapter II of the Hidaya, Book 38. Our view is supported by the ruling in Issur Chandar Shaha v. Mirza Nisar Husain : W.R., 1864, p. 351. That was a case very similar to the present, and it was held that the plaintiff had not duly performed the second ceremony of affirmation by witnesses, although when he expressed his desire to purchase there were witnesses present. The appeal therefore fails, and is dismissed with costs.