Judgment Kanhaiya Singh, J. 1. This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit to enforce the right of pre-emption. Holding Nos. 85 and 72 in Mohalla Begumpur within the jurisdiction of Patna Municipal Corporation are contiguous the former belonging to the plaintiffs and the latter to defendants 1 and 2. On the 29th February 1956, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 conveyed their Holding No. 72 to defendant No. 3 by a registered instrument of sale for a consideration of Rs. 725/-. Plaintiffs alleged that they learnt about this sale on the 28th March 1956, and immediately thereafter they performed the necessary formalities of pre-emption and brought the suit for recovery of possession on the ground that they asked defendant No. 3 to re-convey the disputed holding to them on receipt of the price which he had paid to defendants Nos. 1 and 2, but he refused. 2. Defendant No. 3 resisted the suit and denied the performance of the formalities for preemption by the plaintiffs, and alleged that the plaintiffs had no right to pre-empt. 3. Both the courts below found that the two essential formalities for the exercise of the right of pre-emption were duly performed by the plaintiffs. They, however, came to the conclusion that the customary law of pre-emption violates the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India, and, therefore, was unconstitutional. On this ground, they unsuited the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs have come up in second appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the law of pre-emption based on the ground of vicinage was not unconstitutional, and in support of his contention he referred to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Sheokumar Dubey V/s. Sudama Devi, 1962 BUR 159: ( AIR 1962 Pat 125 ). This decision, no doubt, supports the appellants. It appears, however, that in view of the recent pronouncement of their Lordships or the Supreme Court in the case of Babu Ram V/s. Baij Nath Singh, disposed of on the 7th March 1962 (not yet reported) (since reported in AIR 1962 SC 1476 ) the rule laid down by the Full Bench of this Court is no longer good law. Majority Judges of the Supreme Court have laid down that the law of pre-emption based on vicinage is unconstitutional. Majority Judges of the Supreme Court have laid down that the law of pre-emption based on vicinage is unconstitutional. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the case of Babu Ram V/s. Baij Nath Singh, aforesaid is distinguishable from the facts of the present case, and in spite of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Sheokumar Dubeys case, 1962 BLJR 159: ( AIR 1962 Pat 125 ) still holds the field. His contention is that the decision of the Supreme Court is rested on a construction of particular enactments in force in the States of Madhya Pradesh, Delhi and Maharashtra, and that it does not affect the customary law of pre-emption obtaining in other States. He submitted that what may be considered unreasonable in a particular locality, may not be unreasonable in a different locality, and, therefore, the law of pre-emption, which has been in force in this part of the country for over a centuary, should not be upset on the ground of unreasonableness of the restriction imposed thereby on the power of disposal of property. In my opinion, there is not much force in this contention. A perusal of the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court shows that they have considered the statutory law and also the customary law, and have also reviewed the constitutionality of the law of pre-emption as in force in India, either on the ground of custom or under any particular statute in different parts of India, and have expressed an unequivocal opinion that whatever may be the basis of the law of pre-emption, whether customary or statutory, the law, so far as the right of pre-emption on the ground of vicinage is concerned, is unconstitutional, because the restriction that it seeks to impose upon the free power of disposal cannot be regarded as reasonable. In my opinion, in view of this decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the law of pre-emption based on vicinage, whether by virtue of any enactment or by virtue of custom in any part of this country, is unconstitutional, and cannot be given effect to. Relying, therefore, upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, it must be held that the decisions of the two courts below are correct. 5. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Relying, therefore, upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, it must be held that the decisions of the two courts below are correct. 5. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the present case, the parties will bear their own costs throughout. Ramratna Singh, J. 6 I agree.