Appellate court rules against plaintiffs in pre-emption case, emphasizing legal requirements and prior property challenges.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal in a pre-emption case, ruling against the plaintiffs' claim due to their failure to challenge a prior property sale and establish co-sharer status. The court emphasized the significance of meeting legal requirements and highlighted that pre-emption rights are not valid if prior sales remain unchallenged, regardless of local customs or religious affiliations. The judgment underscored the necessity of proper demands and legal actions to assert pre-emptive rights effectively.

---

---

Issues:
- Suit for pre-emption based on property inheritance and subsequent sale
- Validity of pre-emption claim in light of previous property sale
- Custom of pre-emption among Muslims and Hindus in Sylhet District
- Interpretation of co-sharer rights and pre-emption laws
- Applicability of local custom of pre-emption irrespective of religion or domicile
- Requirement of proper demands for pre-emption rights

Analysis:
1. The case involves a second appeal regarding a suit for pre-emption by the plaintiffs. The property in question originally belonged to three individuals, and the plaintiffs claimed inheritance rights from one of them. The plaintiffs sought pre-emption after learning of a sale made by a co-sharer to third parties, triggering the dispute over their pre-emptive rights.

2. The plaintiffs contended that the mouzas where the properties were situated had a historical custom of pre-emption among both Muslims and Hindus. They sought a declaration of their pre-emptive rights and khas possession of the land in question. The suit detailed the specific measurements and areas of the land subject to pre-emption.

3. The contesting defendants argued that the plaintiffs lost their rights due to a previous sale of the property, rendering them ineligible for pre-emption. The trial court examined the issue, considering the plaintiffs' share in the land and the validity of their pre-emption claim based on previous sales and co-sharer status.

4. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, emphasizing their co-sharer status and entitlement to pre-empt a specific portion of the land. However, the lower appellate court overturned this decision, citing the prior sale as extinguishing the plaintiffs' rights and precluding them from claiming pre-emption.

5. The appellate court distinguished previous cases where co-sharers had pre-emptive rights, emphasizing that the plaintiffs' situation did not align with those precedents. It ruled that as long as the prior sale remained valid, the plaintiffs could not assert pre-emption rights over subsequent transactions.

6. The judgment further delved into the implications of co-sharer rights, emphasizing that the plaintiffs needed to challenge the validity of the prior sale to establish their pre-emptive claims. The court underscored the significance of the plaintiffs' failure to contest the earlier sale, which impacted their ability to claim pre-emption in the current scenario.

7. The court also considered the applicability of the custom of pre-emption based on religion and locality. Citing legal principles and precedents, it discussed the importance of local customs in determining pre-emptive rights, irrespective of the parties' religion or domicile.

8. Reference was made to a Supreme Court case highlighting the broad scope of pre-emption rights based on local customs, emphasizing that such rights attach to the land itself and are not contingent on the parties' religious affiliations or residency. The court underscored the significance of established customs in recognizing pre-emption rights.

9. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, noting that the plaintiffs' failure to challenge the prior sale and establish their co-sharer status precluded them from claiming pre-emption. The judgment highlighted the importance of meeting legal requirements, including proper demands, for asserting pre-emptive rights effectively.

---