JUDGMENT : KNOX, J. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption instituted by the plaintiff. He asked for a decree declaring his right of pre-emption over an eleven-anna share of Sherpura and a six-anna share in Rudarpura. The defence was to the effect that the plaintiff had no title to pre-empt, further that he could not pre-empt in as much as he was claiming only a portion of the property sold and not the whole of that property. There was a further plea as to limitation but with that we are not concerned in this appeal. The court of first instance found that under the conditions of the wajib-ul-arz relied on in the plaint, the plaintiff was entitled to pre-empt in respect both of the property in Sherpura and of that in Rudarpura, and went on to hold that as the plaintiff laid no claim to the other property which has been sold, he was not entitled to a decree for pre-emption. The lower appellate Court rightly held that as the plaintiff had no pre-emptive rights in respect of that portion of the property sold to which he made no claim and as his claim included all property, over which he had rights of pre-emption he was entitled to pre-empt. It however refused to grant him a decree for pre-emption because it held that under the terms of the wajib-ul-arz the right of preemption current in the villages was one in accordance with Muhammadan Law, and as the plaintiff had not shown that he had made the demands required by the Muhammadan Law, it confirmed the decree of the lower Court and dismissed the appeal. Here it is urged that the lower appellate Court was wrong in holding that the Muhammadan Law applied to the case. The claim, as has been already stated, was based upon the wajib-ul-arz. The terms of the wajib-ul-arz are set out on page 9 of the paper-book. In the case of both Sherpura and Rudarpura the original wajib-ul-arz drawn up at the settlement of 1864 laid down the terms upon which the right of pre-emption could be claimed. The claim, as has been already stated, was based upon the wajib-ul-arz. The terms of the wajib-ul-arz are set out on page 9 of the paper-book. In the case of both Sherpura and Rudarpura the original wajib-ul-arz drawn up at the settlement of 1864 laid down the terms upon which the right of pre-emption could be claimed. In case of both the villages in 1883 all that was entered in the wajib-ul-arz about the custom of pre-emption was “No pre-emption suit has been instituted, but custom of pre-emption is accepted.” We are of opinion that the words contained in the wajib-ul-arz of 1883 must be interpreted with reference to what was contained in the wajib-ul-arz of 1864. When the wajib-ul-arz of 1883 was drawn up, the villagers no doubt had in mind what had been the custom of pre-emption from the year 1864 onwards and intended to reproduce and understood that they were reproducing in the wajib-ul-arz of 1883 the custom of pre-emption which has been hitherto found prevailing. The respondents are not represented here but there is a finding that the price that the appellant must pay is Rs. 325 for the property of which he seeks pre-emption. We decree this appeal, set aside the decrees of the Courts below and grant the appellant a decree declaring his right to pre-empt upon payment of Rs. 325 on or before the 2nd of August next. If that amount is paid within the time he will-get his costs in all Courts including fees in this Court on the higher scale and will get possession; if the amount be not paid within such time, the suit will stand dismissed with costs in all Courts.