JUDGMENT : Banerji, J. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The defendants, vendees, are strangers to the village. The plaintiff is a co-sharer in the village but not in the mahal in which the property in question is situated. He asserts that under the terms of the wajib-ul-arz he has a right to pre-empt the property. As observed by the Full Bench in Dalganjan Singh v. Kalka Singh, [1899] I.L.R., 22 All., 1, F.B., each case depends upon the construction of the particular wajib-ul-arz which records the custom or contract which is the basis of the suit. In this case the wajib-ul-arz relied on is the wajib-ul-arz prepared in 1873, which records a custom of pre-emption to the effect that in the case of a sale or mortgage by a share-holder the claim for pre-emption may be brought by (1) own brothers and nephews, (2) cousins who are co-sharers, (3) co-sharers in the patti, and (4) share-holders in the village (hissadaran-i-deh). The plaintiff is admittedly a share-holder in the village. It has been found, in answer to the issues referred by us to the Court below, that at the time when the wajib-ul-arz was prepared, the village had been divided into two pattis, which evidently means two mahals. 2. It has subsequently been divided into more mahals by partition, but no new wajib-ul-arz has been prepared, We have, therefore, to construe the wajib-ul-arz prepared in 1873. As that document confers a right of pre-emption upon share-holders in the village, it evidently means that a person who does not own a share in the patti or mahal in which the property sold is situated, but owns a share in the village is entitled to claim pre-emption as against an outsider, otherwise the provision as to the right of pre-emption existing in a share-holder in the village would be wholly meaningless. The case of a person who claims under a wajib-ul-arz conferring a right of pre-emption only upon co-sharers in the village which has subsequently been divided into mahals is different. In the present instance, as we have already said, the village had already been sub-divided into pattis or mahals before the wajib-ul-arz was prepared, and in spite of such sub-division, the right of pre-emption was given to a person who might own a share in the village although he did not own a share in the patti. In the present instance, as we have already said, the village had already been sub-divided into pattis or mahals before the wajib-ul-arz was prepared, and in spite of such sub-division, the right of pre-emption was given to a person who might own a share in the village although he did not own a share in the patti. That state of things still exists in the village in question and therefore as against an outsider to the village a person holding a share in the village is entitled to pre-empt. The plaintiff, being such a person, has the right of pre-emption claimed by him. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.