W.S. Coutts, J.

1. The facts of this case have been fully stated in the judgment of the Courts below. The plaintiffs are the widow, daughter and representatives of other daughters of one Rahimullah. It appears that defendant No. 2, the son of Rahimullah, mortgaged certain property to defendant No. 1, who obtained a decree upon that mortgage and in execution thereof put the property to sale and purchased it himself.

2. The plaintiffs in this suit sought for a declaration that they have a 2-annas share in one portion of the property and an 8-annas share in another portion of the property and that the defendant No. 2 had no right to mortgage the plaintiff's share. They also asserted a right of pre-emption in respect of a certain portion of the land. The suit was contested by the defendant No. 1 who denied the title of Rahimullah.

3. The suit was dismissed in the Court of first instance but on appeal to the District Judge this decision has been reversed and the plaintiffs have been given a decree. So far as the plaintiffs' title through Rahimullah is concerned the finding of the District Judge is a finding of fact with which we cannot interfere in second appeal.

4. But the defendant No. 1 is a Hindu and the principal question for decision in this appeal is whether the plaintiff has a right of pre-emption in respect of property which has been sold to a Hindu. The learned Vakil for the appellant relies for the proposition which he puts forward, namely, that the Mahomedan law of pre-emption does not apply where the vendee is a Hindu, on the case of Koodrutoolah v. Mohinee Mohan (1870) 13 W. R. 21 = 4 B. L. R. 134 (F.B.).

5. This decision is a Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court and ordinarily we would follow such a decision in this Court but the whole law on the point was subsequently elaborately discussed by Mahmood, J. in the Full Bench case of Gobind Dayal v. Inayatullah (1885) 7 All. 775= (1885) A. W. N. 228 (F.B.) where the decision in Shaikh Koodrutoollah v. Mohinee Mohun (1) was considered, and it was held by him, four other Judges of the Court concurring, that in such a case the Muhammadan law of pre-emption did apply.

6. I have very carefully considered these decisions and, in my opinion, the view which has been taken by the Allahabad Court is the correct view of the law.

7. The only other point which arises is the question of limitation. Under Article 10 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation in cases of pre-emption is one year from the date when the purchaser takes physical possession of the property sold. Now in the present case it has been found by the learned District Judges that the defendant, although symbolical possession was given to him, has never obtained physical possession. This being so, no question of limitation can arise.

8. In the result then I would dismiss this appeal with costs.

9. John Bucknill, J.

10. I agree.