JUDGMENT : STANLEY, C.J.:— We are at a loss to understand how the learned District Judge came to hold that the wajib-ul-arz of 1884 recorded a custom, the incidents of which were not specified, so that the Muhammadan Law must be taken to apply to it. It was proved that in the earlier wajib-ul-arz of 1864 there was the following provision as to pre-emption, namely, that if a sharer desires to transfer his share, the first right of pre-emption is possessed by his near brother, next by the sharers in the patti and next by the sharers in other pattis, and that when all these have declined to take a transfer, the sharer may sell to any one he likes. In the latter wajib-ul-arz it is stated under the head “custom as to pre-emption “that no case or suit had as yet taken place, but the right of pre-emption was acknowledged. The wajib-ul-arz of 1864, according to the rulings of this Court, is clearly evidence of a right existing by custom, and the provision in the latter wajib-ul-arz is a recognition by the parties of the custom prevailing under the earlier wajib-ul-arz. The question has nothing whatever to do with Muhammadan law, as was determined ??? our learned brother BANERJI, in the recent case of Ramdin v. Pokhaar Singh, [1905] I.L.R., 27 All., 553.. The facts of that case are on all fours with those in the present, and in it our learned brother has in a lucid judgment shown that the contention that the rules of the Muhammadan law governed the case was without foundation. We entirely agree with him in the view which he took and also in the reasons which he has assigned for his decision. We must therefore allow the appeal. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's claim but found that the price of the property was only Rs. 525. On appeal the learned District Judge found that the price agreed upon was Rs. 800. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore the decree of the Court of first instance with, this modification, namely, that the sum payable will be Rs. 800 and not Rs. 525. We also extend the time for payment for three months from this date. 800. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore the decree of the Court of first instance with, this modification, namely, that the sum payable will be Rs. 800 and not Rs. 525. We also extend the time for payment for three months from this date. The defendants-respondents must pay the costs of this appeal, including fees on the higher scale in this Court and also the costs in the lower appellate Court.