JUDGMENT : Knox, J. The second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, who is appellant here, to enforce a right of preemption, Her claim was decreed by the Court of first instance. The lower appellate Court while allowing that, if the plaintiff had been in possession of a share, as heir to her deceased husband, she must have acquired a right of pre-emption in respect of the shares in dispute as against the defendants, went on to say, that because the plaintiff had applied to the Revenue Court for the entry of her name in respect of her deceased husband's share, as being in possession in lieu of her dower, she was therefore not a co-sharer within the meaning of the wajib-ul-arz. The reason, the lower Court gives, for thus holding is that a Mohammedan widow, who is in possession of her husband's property in lieu, of her dower, is not a permanent or absolute owner of that property, inasmuch as her possession is liable to be determined at any time by payment of her dower debt. This is so far correct that where a Mohammedan widow is in possession of the shares of other heirs in lieu of her dower, her possession will determine over those shares upon payment by the heirs of their proportionate share of the dower debt. 2. But in so far as she herself is an heir, payment in full of the dower debt would not deprive her of the share that she holds as her and the right to pre-empt in virtue of such share. The learned Subordinate Judge has apparently overlooked the fact that the appellant is in possession in a double capacity both as her to heir deceased husband and in lieu of dower debt. The learned Subordinate Judge has relied upon the case of Khair-un-nissa Bibi v. Amin Bibi, [1887] 7 A.W.N., 93. That case, however, is quite distinct from the case before us. The learned Judges were there considering the rights of a donee of a certain property. That property was property of which the donor had been put in possession under a decree of Court for her dower. The right of the widow as heir was not in that case, considered. We are of opinion that the decree of the first Court was right. That property was property of which the donor had been put in possession under a decree of Court for her dower. The right of the widow as heir was not in that case, considered. We are of opinion that the decree of the first Court was right. We decree this appeal, set aside the decree of the Court below and restore that of the Court of first instance. The appellant will have her costs in this Court and in the Courts below, and the costs in this Court will include fee's on the higher scale.