JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J.:— This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption, and the only question is whether the plaintiff-appellant whose claim has been dismissed by the lower appellate court, has a right of pre-emption under the wajib-ul-arz. The property sold is situated in a mahal in which the plaintiff is not a co-sharer, There was a partition of the village in 1881 and a new wajib-ul-arz was prepared, The mahal in which the disputed share exists was owned by a single proprietor. The wajib-ul-arz prepared at the time of partition recites in chapter 8, which relates among other things to the custom of pre-emption, that a share-holder has a right to sell and mortgage, and that in regard to other matters action will be taken in accordance with the conditions in the settlement wajib-ul-arz. The settlement wajib-ul-arz was prepared in 1869 and provides for the cases in which a right of pre-emption will arise. It is manifest that the wajib-ul-arz prepared in 1881 at the time of partition, maintains the custom recorded in the wajib-ul-arz of 1869. 2. That document provides that any co-sharer who wishes to sell his share must sell it first to sharers descended from a common ancestor, next to hissedar in the patti, and on their refusal to shurkayan deh, that is co-sharers in the village,’ The plaintiff claims to be a pre-emptor of the third class, as he holds a share in the village though not in the same mahal to which the disputed share appertains. The vendee is a stranger to the village. This case is very similar to the case of Badri Prasad v. Hashmat Ali, Vol, I, Allahabad Law Journal, page 33. As there pointed out, the holder of a share in the village, who is not a co-sharer of the vendor, cannot be held to be a pre-emptor of the third class mentioned in the wajib-ul-arz. That document contemplates share-holders in an unbroken village and not persons, who to all intents and purposes are strangers to the mahal in which the property is situated, It contemplates only one class of share holders in the village, viz., those who are co-sharers. The plaintiff not being a co-sharer, is not such a share-holder in the village as is contemplated by the wajib-ul-arz of 1869. The plaintiff not being a co-sharer, is not such a share-holder in the village as is contemplated by the wajib-ul-arz of 1869. The principle of the ruling of the Full-Bench in Dalganjan Singh v. Kalka Singh, I.L.R., 22 All., 1., especially the observations contained on pages 29 and 31 of the report fully apply to this case. The court below was therefore right in dismissing the claim, and I dismiss the appeal with costs,