JUDGMENT : RICHARDS, J. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiffs alleged that they were co-sharers in the same Mahal as the property sold and that they were relations of the vendor. They adduced in evidence the wajib-ul-arz of 1870. This distinctly gives a right of preemption first of all to a real brother, then to a near brother, and then to other co-sharers in the village. The defendants disputed the relationship alleged by the plaintiffs. They adduced in evidence the earlier wajib-ul-arz of 1860. This wajib-ul-arz is translated in the judgment of the District Judge, as follows: —If any co-sharer wishes to transfer his proprietary rights by sale or mortgage, first let him transfer it to a real brother or a near brother or to other cosharers, and in case these refuse or decline to pay the proper price, the owner may transfer to whomsoever he pleases.” The courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that there was no custom. 2. Having regard to the Full Bench decision in the case of Rituraji Dubain v. Pahalwan Bhngat,[1910] I.L.R., 33 All., p. 196, we think that upon this evidence unrebutted, the court was bound to hold that a custom of pre-emption prevailed. 3. We think also that any ambiguity in the first wajib-ul-arz was cured and explained away by the later wajib-ul-arz. We think that the custom proved does give a preferential right to nearer relation or a real brother over a more distant relation or cosharer. We think, therefore, that the decrees of the courts below were wrong. 4. A preliminary point was raised on behalf of the respondents; It appears that after the decree of the court below Amin Chand, respondent No. 6, died. The sale was made to three groups of persons. Chunni took one-third of the property; Ram Lal took one-third; and the defendants 4, 5, 6 and 7 took the remaining third. The appeal was filed either in ignorance or disregard of the death of Amin Chand. An application was made long after time to bring his heirs on the record. This application was refused. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that there cannot be a partial pre-emption and that inasmuch as pre-emption cannot now be allowed in respect of the third purchase by Malkhan, Hoshiyar, Amin Chand and Jahangir, that the appeal must fail altogether. This application was refused. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that there cannot be a partial pre-emption and that inasmuch as pre-emption cannot now be allowed in respect of the third purchase by Malkhan, Hoshiyar, Amin Chand and Jahangir, that the appeal must fail altogether. Reliance is placed upon the ruling in Habibullah v. Achaiber Pandey,[1881] I.L.R., 4 All., 145. That was a case in which there was a joint and indivisible purchase. The plaintiff had omitted to make one of the purchasers a party until after limitation had expired. It was held that pre-emption could not be allowed and the reason given by the learned Judges is that the sale was a joint and indivisible sale. In the present case each group of vendees bought a separate and divided third share. The purchase money is alleged to have been Rs. 900-0-0, but of course there is no difficulty whatever in apportioning the purchase money where each group of purchasers purchased an equal undivided share. We think that the ruling cited does not apply. The case of Arzani Baksh v. Shere Ali,[1892] A.W.N., p. 79 is also cited by the respondents. The report is a very short one and does not show whether the purchase was joint and indivisible or not. We think that there was nothing to prevent the sale in question being carried out by three separate deeds if the parties had so desired. If they had been carried out by three separate deeds, the plaintiffs would clearly have been entitled to bring a suit for pre-emption in respect of any one of the purchases. We, therefore, think that notwithstanding that the suit must fail with regard to the share purchased by Malkhan, Hoshiyar, Amin Chand and Jahangir, there is no reason why the plaintiffs should not succeed against Chunni and Ram Lal, provided they prove their case. 5. It is, however, necessary for the proper disposal of the case that, we should remand certain issues to the court below. The first issue is:— 6. Have the plaintiffs a preferential right to purchase first as against Chunni and secondly as against Ram Lal? 7. And secondly, what was the true consideration for the sale-deed? 8. The court may take any additional evidence which it thinks necessary. On return of the findings ten days will be allowed for filing objections.