JUDGMENT : 1. This is a second appeal by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Shajapur who reversing the decree of the trial Court decreed the suit of the pre-emptor. Kundanlal filed a suit for preemption against Hazarilal vendee and Kesargir vendor on the allegation that the vendor by a sale deed dated 20-3-1948, sold to the vendee land measuring 50 feet long and 23 feet wide and that the said land adjoins his house. On these allegations the plaintiff prayed for preemption. That suit was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal the suit was decreed. Consequently, Hazarilal vendee and Kesargir vendor have filed this appeal. 2. It appears from the record that Kesargir sold land measuring 50 feet by 23 feet to Hazarilal by a sale deed dated 20-3-1948. It is not disputed that this land adjoins the house of the plaintiff. But on 14-5-1948, by a registered deed the vendee resold the 5 feet of land adjoining the house of the plaintiff to Kesargir who originally owned the land. The question, therefore arises as to whether the plaintiff has a right of pre-emption at all. Admittedly the suit of the plaintiff is based on the ground of vicinage. It is clear from para No. 4 of the plaint. In a suit for pre-emption the cause of action must be subsisting (a) when the sale takes place, (b) when the suit is brought and (c) when the decree is to be passed. Section 3 of the Gwalior Pre-emption Act embodies the principle that the right accrues to the plaintiff when the sale takes place. Section 16 of the said Act lays down that a person who has a right to pre-emption may bring the suit after the sale takes place to enforce his right. Section 23 enjoins that the decree for pre-emption can be passed only when the right subsists at the time of the passing of the decree. Unless the right subsists on all these three dates, no decree for pre-emption can be passed. In the present case re-conveyance of 5 feet of land took place on 14-5-1948. The suit was filed on 25-5-1948. The effect of re-conveyance is to deprive the plaintiff of his right of preemption on the ground of vicinage. May be that the re-conveyance was effected with the object of defeating the right of pre-emption. In the present case re-conveyance of 5 feet of land took place on 14-5-1948. The suit was filed on 25-5-1948. The effect of re-conveyance is to deprive the plaintiff of his right of preemption on the ground of vicinage. May be that the re-conveyance was effected with the object of defeating the right of pre-emption. But the fact remains that the land was validly re-conveyed by a registered document, the consequence of which is to leave 5 feet of land adjoining the house of the plaintiff in the ownership of Kesargir, the original owner of the land. This transaction being perfectly valid, it cannot be said that the land adjoining the house of the plaintiff is in the ownership of a stranger. That being the case, the plaintiff had no subsisting right of pre-emption at the time of the filing of the suit or at the time of the passing of the decree. In these circumstances the plaintiff's suit cannot be decreed as he had no subsisting right of pre-emption at the time of the filing of the suit. His suit must, therefore, fail. 3. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and setting aside the decree of the lower appellate Court, the decree of the trial Court is restored. Appellants to get their costs throughout. Appeal allowed.