JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J.:— The respondent having obtained a decree for foreclosure and an order absolute for foreclosure, the suit, out of which this appeal arises, was brought, by the plaintiff-appellant, to enforce his right of pre-emption in respect of the property comprised in the decree. He claimed to have priority over the defendant on the ground that he was a near relative of the vendor He relied upon the wajib-ul-arz of 1864, which provides, that “if a co-sharer is desirous of transferring his share, he shall transfer it first to his near relative and next to co-sharers in the village, and on their refusal he may mortgage or sell it to any one he likes,” It has been found, that the plaintiff is the son of a sister of Musammat Janki, against whom the decree for foreclosure was obtained. As such relative the plaintiff claims the property. 2. The court of first instance dismissed the suit, being of opinion, that the wajib-ul-arz of 1864 had been superseded by the wajib-ul-arz prepared in 1886, and that under the latter wajib-ul-arz the right conferred was the right of pre-emption under the Mahomedan Law, It also held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was a near relative of the vendor. The lower appellate court found, as I have said, that the plaintiff is a near relative. 3. It was also of opinion, that the wajib-ul-arz of 1864, recorded a custom, and that under the subsequent wajib-ul-arz of 1886 the co-sharers agreed to accept the custom which at the time of the preparation of that wajib-ul-arz prevailed-in the village. That court, however, was of opinion, that the near relative could not pre-empt unless he was also a co-sharer, and that as the plaintiff was not a co-sharer, he had no right of pre-emption. On this ground the lower appellate court affirmed the decree of the first court dismissing the plaintiff's claim. 4. It is contended, on behalf of the respondent, that the wajib-ul-arz of 1886 does not record any custom of pre-emption, and that the rule which, under the wajib-ul-arz, governs the co-sharers is the rule of Mahomedan Law. The wajib-ul-arz of 1886 is in the following terms:— ” Up to now there has been no suit for pre-emption, but we accept the right of pre-emption.” This, no doubt, is the record of a contract. The wajib-ul-arz of 1886 is in the following terms:— ” Up to now there has been no suit for pre-emption, but we accept the right of pre-emption.” This, no doubt, is the record of a contract. But it is said that as it lays down on specific rule of pre-emption, by which the co-sharers agreed to be bound, the ordinary rule of Mahomedan Law must be applied. I do not agree with this contention. There can be no doubt that the waijb-ul-arz of 1864 contains the record of a custom. It is certainly not clear that it is the record of a contract, and that being so it must be held, in accordance with the rulings of this Court, that the wajib-ul-arz contains the record of a custom. When the subsequent wajib-ul-arz of 1886 was prepared, the custom recorded in 1864 had not been abrogated, although no suit for pre-emption had been brought. Therefore, when the co-sharers agreed, in 1886, to accept the rule of pre-emption they, clearly agreed to be bound by the rule which at that time prevailed, viz., the custom recorded in the wajib-ul-arz of 1864. On this point, the court below has come to a right conclusion. The learned Judge, however, thinks that under the wajib-ul-arz of 1864, no one can claim pre-emption unless he happens to be a co-sharer in the village. The construction can only be justified by reading into the wajib-ul-arz, words which do not appear in it, Under that document pre-emptors of the first class are near relatives without any qualification, and pre-emptors of the second class are co-sharers in the village. If the intention had been that pre-emptors of the first class must also be co-sharers nothing could have been easier than to insert appropriate words to indicate that intention. As the waijb-ul-arz is worded, it is only near relatives whether they are co-sharers or not who come under the category of pre-emptors of the first class. This case is very similar to that of Abdul Wahid v. Wilayat Husain, [1902] 22 A.W.N., 109. In that case the wajib-ul-arz which contained a similar clause was constructed in the same way in which, in my opinion, the wajib-ul-arz in this case should be construed. This case is very similar to that of Abdul Wahid v. Wilayat Husain, [1902] 22 A.W.N., 109. In that case the wajib-ul-arz which contained a similar clause was constructed in the same way in which, in my opinion, the wajib-ul-arz in this case should be construed. If, therefore, the plaintiff is a near relative of the vendor, he comes under the category of pre-emptor of the first class, and is entitled to maintain this suit. As he is the sister's son of the vendor there can be no doubt that he is a near relative of the vendor and consequently he has a right to preempt the property in suit. There is no other question involved in the appeal. The result, therefore, is that the plaintiff's suit must be decreed, I accordingly allow the appeal and setting aside the decrees of the courts below, make a decree in favour of the plaintiff with costs, in all courts on the condition that the plaintiff do pay the pre-emption money viz., Rs. 504-7-0 within two months from this date. In default of payment the suit will stand dismissed with costs in all courts.