JUDGMENT : KNOX, J. The plaintiff, who is appellant in this second appeal, brought a suit to enforce a right of pre-emption, He based the right he claimed upon a contract, which, he said, was to be found in the wajib-ul-arz of a former settlement. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance, but in appeal the claim was dismissed by the learned District Judge. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal. The learned Judge dismissed the suit on two grounds, the first being that the contract should have been made by a registered instrument. The learned Vakil for the respondents does not attempt to support the judgment of the learned Judge upon this ground. As to this point we think that the learned Judge was wrong. The next ground was that on his construction of the contract the wajib-ul-arz showed that it, was a personal contract to last only so long as Haidar Ali was the sole owner of the property, and was to have effect only, if Haidar Ali sold. One point was overlooked by both the Courts below namely, that this being a contract, would only last as long as the settlement during which it was made continued. That settlement has come to an end, and the plaintiff has adduced ho evidence to show that the contract is still in force. After hearing both sides and considering the terms of this very peculiar wajib-ul-arz, we are of opinion that the language used is so obscure that it affords no basis for a right of pre-emption. The result is, we agree with the learned Judge that no right of pre-emption exists. We dismiss the appeal with costs, including fees on the higher scale.