JUDGMENT Allsop, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption which was dismissed upon the ground that the Plaintiff was not a co-sharer in the mahal in which the property lies although she was a co-sharer in village. The purchasers were also co-sharers with an equal right to buy the property. One of the vendees was recorded as a co-sharer and ,the other two were not but, it has been found that the names of these two were entered benami in the deed of sale which was really in favour of their fathers who are co-sharers in the village. Learned Counsel has raised the point that a benami transaction cannot be set up in defence in a suit for pre-emption and has relied upon the case of Beni Shanker Shelhat v. Mahpal Bahadur Singh (1887) 9 All. 480. This case is not exactly in point but even if it were, I doubt whether it would be good law in view of the definition of the term 'co-sharer' in the Agra Pre-emption Act, 1922. It was decided by a bench of this Court in the case of Sankatha Prasad v. Rukmani 1939 A W R (HC) 810, that a suit for pre-emption does not lie againt a vendee who is a benamidar for a person who could resist the suit. In the Agra Pre-emption Act the term "co-sharer" means any person, other than a petty proprietor, entitled as proprietor to any share or part in a mahal or a village. There can be no doubt that the real purchaser is the person entitled to the share and not the benamidar. There is consequently no force in this appeal. I dismiss it with cost.