JUDGMENT : Banerji, J.:— One Mutsaddi Lall having got a decree for foreclosure, a suit for pre-emption was brought, in respect of the property to which the decree related, by the appellant Salig Ram. On the 18th of December, 1902, the respondent, Kali Shankar, also brought a suit for pre-emption in respect of the same property. On that date the suit brought by. Salig Ram was compromised by him and by the vendee, with the result that in accordance with the compromise a decree for pre-emption was made in favour of Salig Ram, although that date was the, date fixed for settlement of issues only and not for final disposal. If the suit brought by Kali Shankar on the 18th of December, 1892, was filed after Salig Ram had got his decree, Kali Shankar's claim would manifestly be too late, because it has been found that both he and Salig Ram had equal rights of pre-emption Salig Ram was added as a defendant to Kali Shankar's suit, He contended that he had already obtained his decree when Kali Shankar's suit, the one out of which the present appeal arises, was filed. The Court of first instance found in his favour and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court has come to a different conclusion upon that point. It was not satisfied that the suit of Salig Ram had been disposed of before the plaint in Kali Shankar's case was filed. 2. On the contrary, it was of opinion that whilst the suit of Salig Ram was pending, Kali Sliankar brought his suit. That being so, the suit of the plaintiff, Kali Shankar, was not open to the objection that he had brought his suit after another co-sharer, who had equal rights with him, had already obtained a decree. The lower appellate court has decreed one-half of the property to Kali Shankar on the ground that both he and Salig Ram have equal rights of pre-emption. This decree is in accordance with the rules of justice, equity and good conscience, which, in the absence of any statutory enactment, must be applied to a case like this. This was the rule which was followed in Jai Ram v. Mahabir Rai : [1885] I.L.R., 7 All., 720. The learned vakil for the appellant referred to the case of Man Khan v. Mamur Khan : A.W.N., 1886, 56. This was the rule which was followed in Jai Ram v. Mahabir Rai : [1885] I.L.R., 7 All., 720. The learned vakil for the appellant referred to the case of Man Khan v. Mamur Khan : A.W.N., 1886, 56. That case has no bearing upon the question which arises in this case. That was a suit in which both the pre-emptor and the vendee were co-sharers and the pre-emptor had no better right than the vendee. It was rightly held that the plaintiff could not successfully maintain a claim for pre-emption under those circumstances. The Court below was right, and I dismiss this appeal with costs.