JUDGMENT H.G. Richards, C.J. and Banerji, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption which has been dismissed by the lower appellate court on the ground that the plaintiff must be deemed to have refused to purchase the property when it was offered to him before the sale to the defendants vendees and thus waived his right of pre-emption. The property was sold to the defendants vendees for a consideration of Rs. 1,500. The plaintiff alleged in his plaint that this amount was not the actual amount of consideration paid, but that the real consideration was Rs. 800. The court of first instance was of opinion that the real consideration was Rs. 911-1-9. The lower appellate court, however, found that the actual consideration was Rs. 1,500. It appears that before the sale, namely, on the 2nd of March, 1909, the vendor sent a notice addressed to the plaintiff and other members of his family in which he stated that he was about to sell the property to the vendees for Rs. 1,500, and he asked the plaintiff and his co-sharers to purchase the property for that price. The notice was actually delivered on the 15th of March, 1909. The time allowed for sending a reply was one week. On the 22nd of March, 1909, the plaintiff's brother sent a reply, in which he said that he and his co-sharers were willing to purchase the property for Rs. 800, which he said was the real price of the property. The plaintiff himself sent no reply, and for this reason the learned Judge was of opinion that, as the plaintiff himself paid no attention to the notice sent by the vendor, he was not entitled to rely on the reply which was sent by his brother. We do not agree with the learned Judge on this point. It is true that the plaintiff as lambardar had the right of pre-emption, but he was a member of a joint Hindu family, and the vendor issued his notice to all the members of the joint family. The reasonable view to take in respect of the reply is that it was sent on behalf of all the persons to whom the original notice was addressed and as an answer to that notice. The reasonable view to take in respect of the reply is that it was sent on behalf of all the persons to whom the original notice was addressed and as an answer to that notice. Therefore it must be taken to-be an answer, not only on behalf of the plaintiff's brother, but also on behalf of the plaintiff himself. The effect of this answer was that the plaintiff was willing to purchase the property for what was the real consideration for the sale. The plaintiff and his co-sharers did not believe that Rs. 1,500 was the real consideration and therefore they refused to purchase for a price which they honestly believed to be considerably in excess of the real price. The fact that the court of first instance found the real price to be far below the amount mentioned in the sale-deed and the notice is a circumstance which suggests that the plaintiff was justified in believing that the property was not being sold for the price mentioned. The plaintiff swore that the property had been purchased by the vendor for Rs. 800 only a few years before the date of the sale in question. So that it may be reasonably inferred that in refusing to purchase for the price mentioned, the plaintiff was under the bond fide belief that the refusal to purchase was due to the belief that the price of the property had been greatly inflated. That being so, this case comes within the purview of the ruling of this Court in Lajja Prasad v. Debi Prasad (1880) I.L.R., 3 All., 236. In that case it was held that a person having a right of pre-emption does not lose it by refusing to purchase the property at the price at which it was offered to him, because he believes that such price is in excess of the veal price, where the belief is entertained and expressed in good faith. This case was followed in Amir Chand v. Ishar Das Weekly Notes, 1882, p. 46; Bholi Bibi v. Fahima Bibi Weekly Notes, 1882, p. 136 and in Karim Bakhah v. Khuda Bakhsh (1894) I.L.R., 16 All., 247. In accordance with these rulings we must hold that the plaintiff has not forfeited his right of pre-emption. This case was followed in Amir Chand v. Ishar Das Weekly Notes, 1882, p. 46; Bholi Bibi v. Fahima Bibi Weekly Notes, 1882, p. 136 and in Karim Bakhah v. Khuda Bakhsh (1894) I.L.R., 16 All., 247. In accordance with these rulings we must hold that the plaintiff has not forfeited his right of pre-emption. Having regard, however, to the fact that he made untrue allegations in his plaint and deposition and also to the fact that the actual price has been found by the lower appellate court to be Rs. 1,500, we are of opinion that he must bear the costs of the litigation. 2. We accordingly allow the appeal and decree the plaintiff's claim for pre-emption conditional upon his paying Rs. 1,500 within two months from this date. In any event the plaintiff must pay the costs of the respondents in all courts. If the plaintiff fails to pay the purchase money and the costs within the time fixed, the suit will stand dismissed.