JUDGMENT : STANLEY, J. 1. This appeal was referred to a Full Bench by two of us on the representation that it involved the determination of the vexed question of the true construction of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. At the close of a lengthy argument, Pandit Sundar Lal on behalf of the respondent raised a point which appears to us to be fatal to the appeal, and it is not necessary, having regard to the view which we take upon that point, to determine the main question which has been discussed before us at very great length. The suit was instituted on the 23rd of September, 1901, to pre-empt a sale made by one Hari Singh in favour of one Birbal whose heirs are the defendants 1-3. Before the service of the summonses in that suit, Birbal's heirs sold the property to one Sahib Ram on the 3rd of October, 1901. The question as to the application of section 52 at once was raised by this sale; but on the 25th of January, 1902, the plaintiff amended his plaint by the leave of the Court and added Sahib Ram as a defendant and inserted in the body of the plaint two paragraphs in which he impeached the sale made to Sahib Ram as being collusive and also set up his right of pre-emption as against Sahib Ram. Thereupon Sahih Ram filed a written statement, and in it he distinctly raised the question which has been determined by the learned District Judge, namely, that he (Sahib Ram) had a preferential right to pre-empt, that he had so preempted, and that the sale to him was a genuine sale. Issues were joined upon these matters. The Court of first instance did not entertain the question of the preferential claim set up by Sahib Ram, but came to the conclusion that, having regard to the provisions of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff's right to pre-empt was not defeated by the Sale to Sahib Ram. On appeal the learned District Judge considered the question of preferential right and came to the conclusion that Sahib Ram had a preferential right to pre-empt, and this being so, he allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the court below and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 2. On appeal the learned District Judge considered the question of preferential right and came to the conclusion that Sahib Ram had a preferential right to pre-empt, and this being so, he allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the court below and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 2. Now, in view of the finding of the court below that Sahib Ram had a preferential right of pre-emption, it appeals to us that this appeal must fail. The plaintiff elected to amend his plaint and to raise the question as to Sahib Ram's rights. This question has been determined and the plaintiff cannot complain of the course adopted by the Court on his own invitation. 3. If he wished to rely on section 52 alone he was ill-advised in amending his plaint as he did. As matters stand, the rights of the parties having been fully investigated and determined, the plaintiff cannot in our opinion now give the go by to the decision which has been passed and which he himself invited, and fall back on section 52. It is unnecessary in this view of the case to consider the difficult question which arises upon the construction of section 52, and we abstain from offering any opinion upon that question. 4. The learned Vakil for the appellant called our attention to the decision of one of us in (he case of Narain Singh vs. Partab Singh, (1901) I.L.R. 23 All. 247, as an authority for the proposition that the fact of having added Sahib Ram as a defendant to the suit, did not disentitle his client to maintain the suit for pre-emption. In that case, however, although the person to whom the property had been a second lime sold was made a party, on examination of the pleadings we find that there was no amendment or alteration in the body of the plaint itself. It was not in the plaint alleged nor was it contended that the sale to the defendant who was added, was a collusive sale, nor was it alleged that the plaintiff had a preferential right as against the defendant so added. This may differentiate the two cases. It was not in the plaint alleged nor was it contended that the sale to the defendant who was added, was a collusive sale, nor was it alleged that the plaintiff had a preferential right as against the defendant so added. This may differentiate the two cases. We are clearly of opinion that in a case such as the present, the circumstances being as we have described, a defendant having been added who had at the time a right to maintain a suit for pre-emption based upon his preferential claim, and the question of preferential claim having been determined in the suit, it does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to object to the finding upon the issue raised at his invitation and to say that the Court is to disregard it. The sale to Sahib Ram has been found by the court below to be a genuine sale. It has been found by the court below that Sahib Ram had a preferential right to pre-empt. And it is also the case that Sahib Ram is in possession of the property. Under these circumstances there was no alternative left to the Court but to dismiss the appeal. 5. We have also to consider an objection which has been filed on behalf of the respondent on the question of costs. We have considered that question, and we have come to the conclusion that the decision of the court below must be modified to some extent. The court below has awarded the plaintiff the costs of the suit. That order does not seem to us to meet the requirements of the case, but we think, having regard to all the circumstances, and to the fact that the plaintiff had a cause of action when he instituted the suit, also to the fact that the main question on which the parties came to Court, was the construction of section 52, the proper order to make is that each party do abide his own costs in all Courts, We so direct.