JUDGMENT
Banerji, J.
1. This is the plaintiff’s appeal in a suit for pre-emption. The property sold is comprised in two villages, Deoria Granga and Siara Santha. There is no controversy in this appeal in regard to the property first mentioned. As regards the other property, namely, the share in Siara Santha, the purchasers are Dwarka Singh and Mohan Singh. It has been found that Nandan the third purchaser has not purchased the share in that village. It has further been found that the two vendees of that village and the plaintiff are co-sharers of the vendor in the same khata. The plaintiff asserts that she had priority of right because she is related to the vendor, the vendor being the elder brother of her husband. Under the wajib-ul-arz, a hissadar karibi has a right of pre-emption superior to that of any other hissadar in the village. The question is whether the words “hissadar karibi” mean nearness in blood or nearness in share. The Courts below have held that they mean nearness in space and I think that this view is correct. The words “hissadar karibi” have been used in the wajib-ul-arz, as distinguishing that class of co-sharers from other co-sharers in the village and clearly mean co-sharers who are near as regards the share sold. There is nothing to indicate that blood relationship was intended. In this view the plaintiff has no priority, of right over the vendees as regards the share in Siara Santha and her suit has been rightly dismissed in respect of that share. I accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.
