JUDGMENT : BLAIR, J. The suit out of which this appeal arises is one for pre-emption. The claim of the plaintiff, whose title is not disputed, is resisted by the defendants, vendees, upon the ground that he also is a co-sharer in the village, within the meaning of the wajib-ul-arz relating to that particular village, We have examined a considerable number of cases and considered the arguments which have been advanced, with much ability and ingenuity, by the learned Vakils on both sides. We find ourselves forced to the conclusion that this appeal has been practically disposed of by the finding of the first appellate court. We find that the learned Judge arrives at the following finding upon which he defeats the claim of the defendant to be a co-sharer. He says, “there is no evidence before me as to the constitution of the village to show whether the resumed muafi land is or is not considered by the resident or co-sharers as ordinarily khalsa land. All I can find is that the special khewat in which the respondent is a co-sharer consists of 8 bighas only, from which I may presume that this resumed muafi land consists of a few plots separate from other lands in the village, According to the rulings quoted above, I understand it would be held that when an owner or co-sharer in resumed muafi laud wishes to claim the privileges of co-sharer, the burden of proof lies on him to prove that he can exercise these privileges, and in the absence of such proof he cannot be considered a co-sharer. In this case no such proof is forthcoming.” It appears to us that this is a finding of fact and is consistent with the rulings of this Court. 2. Another point is raised upon the analogy of the provisions of the Mohamedan law on the subject. It is alleged that the plaintiff in the pre-emption suit, who is the respondent here, received from the vendor of the sale, which gave rise to the claim for pre-emption, monies due to her as mortgagee of the vendor. 3. We are unable to hold that such receipt by her was intended to be or operates as waiver of her pre-emptive rights, We must dismiss the appeal with costs.