no satisfactory explanation was offered by the vendees about their omission to apply for mutation of names or to take possession of the arazidari property till one year after the execution of the sale deed. All this must have been done by the vendees with some set purpose and the only object of the vendees must have been to keep the plaintiff from the knowledge of the sale till the period of limitation prescribed by Article 10 of Schedule 1, Limitation Act, had expired. In Sheo Shanker v. Partab Narain a Bench of this Court in almost identical circumstances held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 18, Limitation Act. In that case it was found that the sale deed instead of being registered at the tahsil in which the property was situate, was registered in another district; that, in order to get the registration effected, a small plot in another district was included; that the stamp paper was also purchased in the other district several months before the execution of the sale deed; that the defendant vendees did not even take possession of the property purchased for over a year nor did apply for mutation of names within one year, and the Benc held that these facts justify the conclusion that there was tin active and fraudulent concealment of the sale. The finding on the question of limitation recorded by the lower Appellate Court is no doubt a finding on a mixed question of fact and law, but as I am satisfied that the inference drawn by hat Court, from the facts found by it, was justified, I cannot interfere with that finding. The next point argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant was that the plaintiff had not the right to pre-empt the arazidari property. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel drew my attention to the terms of the paragraph relating; to pre-emption contained in the wajibul-arz. According to the custom recorded in, the wajibularz a right of pre-emption is with respect to "haqiyat zamin-dari" properties, It is contended