JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed, inter alia, possession of certain immovable property by right of pre-emption. There is no question now as to the existence of a custom of pre-emption in, respect of the zamindari. The sale-deed comprised a zamindari share which was described as being a five acre share. There were also two other items of property and a house. We are now concerned with the two items other than-the house because they have been found to be the property of the pre-emptor With regard to the house it is situate within the ambit of the zamindari and it appears to have been owned by the vendor and a number of other persons. The Court below has dismissed the plaintiff's suit for pre-emption upon the ground that the plaintiff being entitled to pre-empt the zamindari property was also entitled to pre-empt the house if he had performed the formalities required by Mahomedan law, and that, not having done so, he has forfeited his right to pre-empt even the zamindari. 2. The plaintiff has appealed. A preliminary point was raised which we have overruled. 3. The appellant contends first that the mere fact that he did not exercise his rights under the Mahomedan law ought not to deprive him of his rights under the village custom. 4. Secondly he contends that he had no right to purchase the house and that he has in fact claimed in the present suit all the property which he was entitled either under the Mahomedan law or custom to claim in pre-emption. 5. There are undoubtedly authorities in this Court for the proposition that a pre-emptor must claim all that he is entitled to claim even where his right is based partly on Mahomedan law and partly on village custom, and we feel we are bound by these authorities. 6. The next question arises whether the plaintiff was really entitled under the Mahomedan law to pre-empt the house. We have had a plan before us which shows that there is a waste plot on the ground adjoining the house. In the Court below the plaintiff attempted to get over this difficulty by alleging that a small space was left between the waste plot and the house, and that he had no claim to this slip of land. We have had a plan before us which shows that there is a waste plot on the ground adjoining the house. In the Court below the plaintiff attempted to get over this difficulty by alleging that a small space was left between the waste plot and the house, and that he had no claim to this slip of land. This suggestion was, we think, rightly thrown aside by the Court below. When carefully considered it will be evident that the plaintiff's only right to the adjoining plot was by virtue of his being the owner in common with the rest of the zamindari body, which, of course included the vendor. The plaintiff was not a co-sharer in the house as distinguished from the site, nor was he a co-sharer in any appurtenances to the house. So far as the house was concerned he had nothing in common with the vendor. Under these circumstances we are clearly of opinion that the plaintiff had no right under the Mahomedan law to purchase the house (as distinguished from the site) merely by reason of his owning a fractional share in the zamindari. So far as the site is concerned he has claimed it as part of the zamindari in his suit. The plaintiff-appellant has conceded that he claims no abatement in respect of the value of the house. 7. We allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of both the courts below, so far as they dismiss the plaintiff's suit for preemption, and remand the case to the lower appellate Court with directions to readmit the appeal under its original number in the file and proceed to hear and determine the same according to law. Costs in this Court will abide the result.