JUDGMENT 1. The suit out of which this appeal arises is one for pre-emption. The facts are set forth in the judgments of the Courts below. It is unnecessary to recapitulate them. It is sufficient for the disposal of this appeal to state that the Plaintiff is a Sunni, the vendor Defendant a Shia, and the purchaser Defendants are Hindus. The District Judge, as well as the Munsif, has held the Plaintiff to be entitled to the right of pre-emption claimed and has given him a decree. 2. The purchaser Defendants appeal. On their behalf it has been argued that the Courts below are wrong (1) because the vendor Defendant is a Shia, and according to the Shia law, no right of preemption exists in the case of a property, which belongs to more than two co-sharers, and (2) because the formalities essential to the exercise of the right of pre-emption were not duly observed, inasmuch as the names of all the purchasers were not specified at the time of proclaiming the Plaintiff's right. We are unable to assent to either of these contentions. 3. The learned pleader for the Appellants has cited the cases of Poorno Singh v. Hurry Churn Sarmah 10 B.L.R. 117: s.c. 18 W.R. 441 (1870), Dwarka Das v. Husain Buksh ILR 1 All. 564 (1878), Abbas Ali v. Maya Ram (3) and Qurban Ali v. Chote ILR 22 All. 102 (1899), and contends that, these cases show that the law to be applied in suits for preemption is the personal law of the vendor. But no such rule of law is therein expressly laid down. On the other hand, in Syed Ameer Ali's Mahomedan Law, Vol. I, p 600, we find it said that "the Sunni Hanafi law relating to the right of pre-emption is the law in force in this country either territorially or by custom." Again, in Sir R. Wilson's Anglo Mahomedan Law, p. 397, in the note to sec. 351, it is observed that the "Shia law never obtained official recognition under the Mogbul Empire." Then, in the case of Abbas Ali v. Maya Ram ILR 12 All. 229 (1888), both the pre-emptor and vendor were Shias. In Qurban Husain v. Chote ILR 22 All. 102 (1899) the pre-emptor was a Shia, but the vendor a Sunni. 351, it is observed that the "Shia law never obtained official recognition under the Mogbul Empire." Then, in the case of Abbas Ali v. Maya Ram ILR 12 All. 229 (1888), both the pre-emptor and vendor were Shias. In Qurban Husain v. Chote ILR 22 All. 102 (1899) the pre-emptor was a Shia, but the vendor a Sunni. So these cases favour the view taken by the District Judge that it is only when both parties are Shias, that the law of the Shia sect prevails. We, accordingly, consider that the District Judge was right in deciding this case by the Hanafi law, and according to which the Plaintiff undoubtedly has a right of pre-emption in the property in dispute. 4. The learned pleader for the Appellants has not been able to show us any authority for his second plea that the formalities of pre-emption were not duly performed in this case, because the names of all the purchasers were not enumerated at the time of the talabi mouashibat and the talab-i-ishtishad. The names of the purchasers were described as "Jug Deo Singh and others" -- and this was proclaimed at the houses of all the live purchasers On the other hand. Syed Ameer Ali, at p. 606, lays down that "no particular formula is necessary so long as the claim is unequivocally asserted." There appears to us to have been nothing equivocal in the assertion of the Plaintiff's claim. We, accordingly, see no ground for interference and dismiss this appeal with costs.