JUDGMENT : Aikman, J.:— This is an appeal by the vendee-defendant in a pre-emption suit. One Gokul Prasad sold to his first cousin viz., to the son of his father's brother, the property in dispute. The respondent, Baldeo Prasad, claimed a right to pre-empt this property on the strength of the wajib-ul-arz. Baldeo Prasad is the uncle, i.e., own brother of the fathers of the vendor and vendee. The wajib-ul-arz provides that when a co-sharer wishes to sell he must first offer the property to his own brother and nephew (bhai bhatija hakiki), next to his first cousin (b. chachazad) who may be a co-sharer of the vendor, after that to the co-sharers of the patti, then to the co-sharers in the thole and to the sharers in the village. 2. It will be seen that here we have no mention of the uncle of the vendor having any preferential right to pre-empt. The learned Subordinate Judge says, that he is of opinion that the own uncle should be placed in the same category in which the own cousin is placed.” It is somewhat peculiar that he did not give effect to this view; for if it is correct, the plaintiff has not any preferential right over the vendee. For the respondent, it is argued that the intention of the framers of the wajib-ul-arz was to include uncles in the first category. If this is so, it is to be regretted that they did not give effect to their intention. An uncle is neither a bhai hakiki nor is he a bhatija hakiki. It might have been expected that when a nephew was given a right to pre-empt, a reciprocal right would be given to an uncle; but I can only construe the document as it stands, and in my opinion it does not give the plaintiff any preference over his nephew, the defendant. I allow the appeal, and setting aside the decrees of the Courts below, dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs in all Courts.