JUDGMENT : Banerji, J.:— This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption, and the decision of the case depends upon the interpretation to be put upon the terms of the wajib-ul-arz. The plaintiffs are co-sharers of the vendors in the same khata. The vendees are their co-sharers in the snme thoke, but not in the same khata. The plaintiffs claim priority as being nearer co-sharers of the vendors. The wajib-ularz provides for three classes of pre-emptors: (1) near co-sharers of the vendor, (2) dusre thoke ke his-eadaran, that is, co-sharers in another thoke, (3) digar hissadaran thoke (other co-sharers in the thoke). It is clear that the three classes of pre-emptors mentioned in the wajib-ul-arz are mutually exclusive. Those who come under class (1) certainly do not come under the other two classes. The plaintiff's are admittedly not pre-emptors of the second class. They claim to be pre-emptors of the first class, Now, the third class of pre-emptors are described as persons who are other co-sharers in the thoke, that is/in the same thoke. The word other excludes a certain class of co-sharers in the thoke, and that class can only be the class mentioned in clause (1), namely, near co-sharers. It may be that by a mistake class (3) has been put down in place of class (2). It was contended that class (3) should have priority over class (2), but that is not the question before me, Whether co-sharers in other thokes have priority over co-sharers in the same thoke who are not near co-sharers, is not the question which has to be determined in this case. 2. There can be no doubt about the fact that the wajib-ul-arz refers to three classes of pre-emptors, and that by hissadaran qaribi (near co-sharers) was meant a limited class not comprising all the co-sharers in the same thoke. Otherwise the words digar hissadaran thoke (other co-sharers in the thoke) in class (3) would be meaningless. The learned Subordinate Judge has not referred to class (3) at all. He assumes that under the wajib-ul-arz there are only two classes of pre-emptors, the first class being near co-sharers, that is, near co-sharers in the same thoke. By nearness is clearly meant nearness in space. Consequently, as the plaintiffs are co-sharers in the same khata, they have a right of pre-emption superior to that of other co-sharers in the thoke. He assumes that under the wajib-ul-arz there are only two classes of pre-emptors, the first class being near co-sharers, that is, near co-sharers in the same thoke. By nearness is clearly meant nearness in space. Consequently, as the plaintiffs are co-sharers in the same khata, they have a right of pre-emption superior to that of other co-sharers in the thoke. In this view the preliminary ground upon which the lower appellate Court has dismissed the plaintiff's claims cannot be supported. I accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court, and remand the case to that Court under the provisions of section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure for trial on the merits. The appellants will have their costs of this appeal, including fees on the higher scale. Other costs will follow the event.