JUDGMENT Yashoda Nandan, J. -This defendants second appeal arising out of a suit for preemption instituted by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-respondent and the appellant got the property in suit sold by the defendant respondent in favour of the defendant-appellant re-transferred by the appellant in favour of the plaintiff in lieu of Rs. 1250/- or in lieu of the amount determined by the court has been referred to a larger Bench by a learned single Judge since he noticed that there was a conflict of opinions in the decision of Zahur v. Nur Ali ((1878) ILR 2 All 99) and Oudh Behari Singh v. Gajadhar Jaipuriya (AIR 1958 All 698) on the question as to whether there was a right of preemption in respect of Parjawati land or leasehold land. Both these cases were decided by Division Benches of this Court. 2. The two courts below decreed the plaintiffs claim relying on the decision in Zahur v. Nur Ali (supra). In this decision a Bench consisting of Pearson and Turner JJ. repelled the contention that there was no right to preempt a sale of property where the vendor was owner of the house and not of the site but merely had a right of occupation thereof. This judgment was rendered in the year 1879. 2A. Again in Oudh Behari Singh v. Gajadhar Jaipuriya (supra), Bench con-siting of Raghubar Dayal and Kidwai JJ. were called upon to decide the question as to whether there was a right of preemption under the Muhammadan Law in respect of sale of parajwatdari tenure came up for consideration. 3. In Oudh Behari Singh v. Gajadhar Jaipuriya ( AIR 1954 SC 417 ) the Supreme Court had observed that;- "The crux of the whole thing is that the benefit as well as the burden of the right of preemption run with the land and can be enforced by or against the owner of the land for the time being although the right of the preaemptor does not amount to an interest in the land itself. In our opinion the law of preemption creates a right which attachis to the property and on that footing only it can be enforced against the purchaser." Relying on the above noted observations of the Supreme Court, the Bench deciding Oudh Behari Singh v. Gajadhar Jaipuriya held that:- "It would appear from these observations that the law of preemption creates a limitation or disability upon the ownership of a property to the extent that it restricts the owners unfettered right of sale. It does not impose limitation or disability on any other right of property, namely, rights like those of a lease or a mortgage. It should follow, therefore, that there was no such disability upon the parjawatdari rights of defendants 2 to 5 which they had sold and that therefore the plaintiff could not enforce his right of preemption in connection with the sale of lease rights..........." When Zahur v. Nur Ali was decided there was no decision of the Supreme Court even remotely touching on the question decided by the subsequent decision. Oudh Behari Singh v. Gajadhar Jaipuryia and others was. as already noticed, based on observations made in a decision of the Supreme Court and consequently the view taken in Zahur v. Nur Ali must be held to have been superseded though the decision was not specifically referred to in the later decision. 3A. Since then in Munni Lal v. Bishwanath Prasad ( AIR 1968 SC 450 ) the view of this court in Oudh Behari Singh v. Gajadhar Jaipuriya (supra) has been specifically approved. It was held by the Supreme Court in this case that:- "The law in our opinion is quite clear and it is that under the Mahommedan law of preemption there must be full ownership in the land preempted and therefore the right of preemption does not arise on the sale of leasehold interest in land. It may be added that the preemptor to maintain a suit for preemption tor reciprocity is the basis of Mahommadan law of preemption. In this view of the matter, as the custom which was found proved was coextensive with Mahommedan law, there can be no preemption of the land which had been sold by the impugned sale deed because the land was prajawati land i. e. leasehold. We may in this connection refer to Oudh Behari Singh v. Gajadhar Jaipuria AIR 1955 All 698 ..." 4. We may in this connection refer to Oudh Behari Singh v. Gajadhar Jaipuria AIR 1955 All 698 ..." 4. The law on the subject tor consideration in this appeal has been set at rest by the decision in Munni Lal v. Bishwanath Prasad (supra). 5. No other question of law appears to have been argued before the learned single Judge nor was any raised before us. The learned single Judge has referred the entire appeal to a larger Bench. Since we are of the view that the courts below wrongly held that the plaintiff had right of preemption in respect of the property which constituted Parjawati land, this appeal must succeed and is hereby allowed. The decrees of the courts below are set aside and the plaintiff respondents suit is dismissed pith costs to the appellants.