JUDGMENT Dar and Malik, JJ. - This is a Plaintiff's appeal in a suit for profits for the years 1344 and 1345 F. brought against the Defendant-lambardar. The Plaintiff purchased some property under a sale deed in the year 1936. The sale deed was, however, pre-empted and decree for pre-emption was passed against the Plaintiff on the 12th of May, 1939. The pre-emptor deposited the pre-emption money on the 10th August, 1939, and he has now got possession of the property and has become the owner thereof. The Plaintiff, however, claims that prior to this deposit on the 10th of August, 1939, it must be deemed that he was a co-sharer of the property and was entitled to get his share of the profits from the lambardar. He has, therefore, brought the suit for a period beginning from July, 1936 to 1938. The Defendant lambardar objected that the Plaintiff had no right to claim any profits inasmuch as after the decree for pre-emption it must be held that the pre-emptor was substituted in place of the Plaintiff vendee from the date of the purchase and, therefore the Plaintiff was not a co-sharer during the period for which he has filed the suit. The Defendant relied on a decision of this Court, Mohammad Mustafa Husain Khan v. Sri. Ram (1926)98 I C 803. Both the Courts below have relied on this decision and have dismissed the Plaintiff's suit. The Plaintiff has filed the second appeal and has urged that the decision of the Courts below was erroneous and he was entitled to a decree for the period in suit. 2. A pre-emption decree is passed under Order 2, r. 14 of the CPC which lays down the terms in which the pre-emption decree should be sorded. In accordance with the provisions of Order 20, r. 14 a pre-emptor only becomes owner of the property on deposit of the pre-emption money. Order 20, r. 14, Clause (1) (b) reads as follows: ...on payment into Court of such purchase-money, together with the costs (if any) decreed against the Plaintiff, on or before the day referred to in Clause (a), the Defendant shall deliver possession of the property to the Plaintiff, whose title thereto shall be deemed to have accrued from the date of such payment.... 3. 3. Learned Counsel for the Defendant has, however, urged that this decree is between the vendee and the pre-emptor and he is not bound by the terms of the decree and according to him reliance should be placed on the definition of the words "right of preemption" given in Section 4, Sub-section (9) of the Agra Pre-empticn Act (No. XI of 1922). "Right of Pre-emption" is defined there as "the right of a person on a transfer of immoveable property to be substituted in place of the transferee by reason of such right." Learned Counsel argued that the substitution must necessarily be from the date of the sale-deed. 4. We do not think that interpretation necessarily follows on the language of the section and the right of pre-emption there must be deemed to accrue in confirmity with the rules in Order 20, r. 14 of the CPC Code. Section 24 of the Agra Pre-emption Act reads as follows: A person who has obtained a decree for pre-emption in respect of any property shall acquire no title to that property until he pays the purchase money into Court in accordance with the pre-emption decree, but upon such payment being made any alienation of the property made by the original purchaser or by any person claiming through him shall be voidable at the option of the decree-holder with affect from the date of such payment. 5. The said section also mentions that it is only on deposit of the purchase-money in Court in accordance with the pre-emption decree that the rights of the pre-emptor will accrue in the property. The point is well settled by a decision of the Judicial Committee and by various decisions of Courts in India.-See Deokinandan v. Sri Ram (1890) 12 All 234, Jai Devi Kunwar v. Kalyan Singh (1928) A L J 541 at 543, Ram Lal v. Mohammad Faiyaz Ah Khan 1931 A L J 428 at 429 and Deonandan Prasad Singh v. Ramdhari Chowdhri (1917) 44 Cal 636. In view of these decisions and view of the various provisions of the Agra Pre-emption Act and of Order 20, r. 14 of the CPC Code, it is absolutely clear that the vendee is entitled to the rents and profits for the period prior to the date of deposit of the pre-emption money by the pre emptor. 6. The Plaintiff, however, claimed profits at gross rental. 6. The Plaintiff, however, claimed profits at gross rental. The lower appellate Court has held that the Plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 654-9-6l(sic)only less costs of collection at 10 per cent. No reason has been shown why the figure found by the lower appellate Court should not be accepted. We therefore, decree the Plaintiff's suit for Rs 589 only. In view of the fact that the parties have succeeded in part, we direct that they should bear their own costs in all the Courts. 7. In view of our decision of the case itself the cross-objection is dismissed.