JUDGMENT : STANLEY, C.J.:— The suit out of which this first appeal arises is a suit brought by two plaintiffs who claim under certain village-records to have a right of pre-emption over land which has been the subject-matter of a sale deed, dated the 11th of February, 1903, a sale-deed in favour of two persons, Musammat Natho Bibi and Abdul Ghani Khan, her husband, respondents to the present appeal. The property sold is situate in three separate mahals. Each of these mahals is sub-divided into three pattis, named respectively:— (1) Patti Mansab Begum, and (2) Patti Hasan Ali, and (3) Patti Abdul Ghani Khan, and in the first two of these pattis the property in dispute lies. No portion of it is in the last named patti. In both of the first two pattis, Musammat Natho Bibi is a shareholder, but in none of these pattis is Abdul Ghani, her husband, a share-holder. He is a share-holder in the third patti. The plaintiffs, appellants here, are share holders in patti Hasan Ali in all the three villages. The wajib-ul-arz is to be found on the record and runs as follows:— “The pattidars of all the three pattis in this village are own brothers and relations. Hence should any sharer of any patti be willing to sell his share, he shall in the first instance offer it to the co-sharers of the patti and in case of their refusal to any person he may like.” 2. The appellants claim that they have a preferential right of pre-emption over Musammat Natho Bibi on the ground that they are sons of the vendor and therefore have a preferential light. But we do not find in the wajib-ul-arz any preference given to persons who are brothers and relations. Two classes of persons are described in that wajib-ul-arz, namely (first) co-sharers of the patti and (second) the world in general. The mere fact that there are these words of preamble, namely “that the pattidars of all the three pattis in this village are own brothers and relations,” cannot in our opinion be so forced as to bear the interpretation that there is by implication a third class, own brother and relation who have preference over and above the ordinary co-sharer of the patti. So far therefore as the property in dispute, in patti Hassan Ali is concerned, Musammat Natho Bibi and the plaintiffs stand upon one and the same platform and the plaintiffs have no preferential right to pre-empt. The lower court, however, went on in its judgment to say that because Musammat Natho Bibi had in the sale-deed of the 11th February, 1903, associated herself with Abdul Ghani Khan who was a stranger she thereby lost her right of pre-emption and that right of pre-emption could not be revived. We find however that after the sale of the 11th of February 1903, namely on the 11th of April 1903, and before the present suit was instituted Abdul Ghani Khan had resold the 1/6th of the property, which he purchased, to Musammat Natho Bibi and that at the time when the present suit was brought Mussammat Natho Bibi was in fact the person in possession of the whole of the property sold. This being the case, this case is on all fours with a former precedent of this Court Serh Mal v. Hukam Singh, [1897] I.L.R., 20 All, 100. when it was laid down that if the land which is subject to pre-emption having been sold to a stranger is subsequently resold by the stranger vendee before suit to a co-sharer having equal right with those seeking preemption no suit for pre-emption will lie. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs which in this court will include fees on the higher scale.