JUDGMENT : BLAIR, J.:— I find it impossible to decree this appeal. The facts are that the present plaintiff's property was wrongfully sold by the older members of his family when he was a minor. The property in question formed the subject of a suit for pre-emption brought by the defendant. That suit had been decreed and the then plaintiff had been put in possession of the property. The present suit has been brought at a time far beyond the period prescribed by article 10, schedule II of the Indian Limitation Act. The plaintiff claims as the terminus a quo, from which limitation should run, the time when the defendant's suit against the persons who had wrongfully sold and wrongfully bought his property had been decreed and possession given to him. I know of no authority for the proposition that the right of the plaintiff claiming pre-emption is in any way affected by the question whether he is in possession or not. The basis of his suit to the best of my knowledge—and no authority has been produced to the contrary—is his title. There was no reason why he should not have brought a suit impleading together with the vendor and vendee the rival pre-emptor within such time as to satisfy the provisions of the Statute of Limitation. 2. He did not take that course. He admittedly brought his suit which, if the article applicable to the case is Article 10, is unquestionably beyond time. My attention has been called to Durga v. Haidar Ali, [1884] I.L.R., 7 All., 167. In that case the plaintiff asked for a declaration that he had a better pre-emptive title than the other pre-emptor. But the other pre-emptor was not in possession, and the plaintiff in that suit did not ask for possession but simply as against the rival pre-emptor for a declaration of his preferential right. That therefore was held not to be a suit to which article 10, schedule II, would apply. The words of that article are: “Suit to enforce a right of pre-emption whether the right is found upon law or general usage or upon special contract.” Surely a suit claiming possession by virtue of pre-emptive right is a suit to enforce a right of preemption, I see no reason why such a suit should not be brought within the period specified by article 10. The court below was, I think, right. I am therefore of opinion that his appeal must be dismissed, and it is hereby dismissed with costs.