JUDGMENT : STANLEY, C.J.:— The question arising in this appeal is not free from difficulty. The suit which has given rise to it was one for pre-emption, the plaintiff being a co-sharer in the thok, a portion of which was sold to the defendant vendee. It is based upon a provision contained in a wajib-ul-arz of 1872. According to that provision a share-holder in any thok or palti wishing to sell his share was bound to sell it to persons arranged in four categories and in default of purchase by any of them then to any one he pleased. Then there is this passage at the end of the provision, namely, “If there be a difference between a seller and a preempted as regards the amount of price, it shall be settled as follows:— In case of sale Re. 1 per kutcha bigha of the culturable land and in case of mortgage 8 annas per kutcha bigha of the culturable land.” In the existing settlement this provision does not appear. The property was sold to the defendant vendee for a sum of Rs. 599. The price, if calculated according to the provision in the wajib-ul-arz of 1872, only amounts to Rs. 144-8-0. The plaintiff claims to be entitled to the benefit of the purchase on payment of the lesser amount, namely, Rs. 144-8-0. The learned District Judge held that the provision in the wajib-ul-arz of 1872 as to the price was a matter of contract between the zamindars and not the record of a custom, and that in as much as the provision is not embodied in the recent wajib-ul-arz, the plaintiff could not rely upon it. He held that if the arrangement as to the price was one which could be treated as a custom, it had fallen into desuetude, and if a contract, it was a contract made only for the period of the settlement of 1872, based on the circumstances then existing, and that the plaintiff could not now claim to have the price fixed in accordance with it. He accordingly gave the plaintiff a decree for possession of the property on payment of Rs. 599, the sum actually agreed to be paid by the vendee. He accordingly gave the plaintiff a decree for possession of the property on payment of Rs. 599, the sum actually agreed to be paid by the vendee. The learned Vakil for the appellant relying chiefly upon a decision of a Full Bench of the Court in the case of Karim Bakhsh Khan v. Phula Bibi, [1886] I.L.R., 8 All., 102. contended that the wajib-ul-arz of 1892 recorded a custom, and that this custom ran with the land and that his client was entitled to obtain the benefit of the purchase on payment of the price fixed in accordance with it. We have carefully considered the language of the wajib-ul-arz of 1872. Paragraph 10 in which the rights as to pre-emption are set forth, falls tinder chapter II of the wajib-ul-arz and chapter II is entituled. “Rights amongst co-sharers based on custom or special agreement.” If the record as regards pre-emption was a record of custom alone, there might be force in the argument which has been presented to us on behalf of the appellant, but in view of the fact that chapter II deals_ with rights arising not merely from custom but also rights arising by contract, we must, having regard to the language of the wajib-ul-arz, see if the provision in question is the record of an agreement between the parties or a record of a custom previously existing. We are disposed to agree with the learned District-Judge that the condition as to the price was inserted by agreement of the parties and was intended to regulate their rights during the period of the settlement and, no longer, and that it was not a record of a pre-existing custom. This being so, the decision of the Court below was right. We have carefully considered the case of Karim Bakhsh Khan v. Phula Bibi mentioned above, and it appears to us that the pre-emption right which was considered in that case was also one created by contract of the parties and not one existing by custom. This being so, the decision of the Court below was right. We have carefully considered the case of Karim Bakhsh Khan v. Phula Bibi mentioned above, and it appears to us that the pre-emption right which was considered in that case was also one created by contract of the parties and not one existing by custom. We find in the judgment of the learned Chief Justice several references to the nature of the right., He states “that by the wajib-ul-arz of the village it was agreed by the co-sharers that if any of them desired to sell his share, he should offer it to the others,” & c, and again he says that “it has always been considered that agreements of this nature run with the land” and in several other places he refers to the agreement of the parties. In that case, therefore, the pre-emptive right was one arising by contract, and the rule by which the price of the land was to be calculated was a matter of contract and not of custom. 2. We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs in both Courts. At the request of the appellant we extent the time for payment of the pre-emptive price for three months from this date. If the plaintiff-appellant fail to pay the sum of Rs. 599 with the cost of this appeal, and the cost in the Court below, his suit will be dismissed with costs in all Courts. If the money be paid within the time mentioned, he will be entitled to possession of the pro-perty. 3. We have considered the objection which was filed by the respondent under section 561 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has no foundation and is dismissed with costs.