JUDGMENT : RICHARDS, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The court of first instance decreed the claim. The lower appellate court reversed the decree and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The only evidence adduced by the plaintiff in support of his case was the wajib-ul-ars of 1867. The wajib-ul-arz is of a somewhat unusual nature. On the face of it, if we were to construe the document, according to the ordinary rules of construction of written documents, it would be the record not of a custom but of a contract. There are a number of other matters dealt with in the wajib-ul-ctrz which it is extremely improbable were established customs or usages at the time the wajib-ul-arz was prepared. The entries in the wajib-ul-arz are in all probability “entries recorded to connote the views of individuals as to the practice that they would wish to see prevailing rather than the ascertained fact of a well established custom.” See the remarks of Lord COLLINS in the case of Thakur Anant Singh v. Thakut Durga Singh, [1910] L.R., 37 I.A., 191. We think that the real question in the present case is whether or not the evidence adduced by the plaintiff was sufficient to establish a usage or custom of preemption prevailing in the village. There is no evidence of a single instance in which the custom was enforced or exercised. The plaint referred to the earlier wajib-ul-arz but the plaintiff did not file them. We think that the fair inference to be drawn is that these earlier documents would not support the plaintiff's case. It may be that there are no entries as to pre-emption at all or that the entries are inconsistent with the entry in the wajib-ul-arz of 1867. In short, as we have said above, the sole evidence adduced by the plaintiff was the wajib-ul-arz of 1867. Their Lordships of the Privy Council in dealing with the question of the weight to be attached to the wajib-ul-arz as establishing usages have said “Another piece of evidence on his part of the case is the wajib-ul-arz of the village Deokalia which is part of the Bhatwamau estate. 2. This class of document is always admissible in evidence, being an official village record. 2. This class of document is always admissible in evidence, being an official village record. Its weight may be very slight or may be considerable according to circumstances.” See Tofaluddi Peada v. Mohar Ali Shaha, [1898] I.L.R., 26 Cal., 78, at p. 92. Again, in the case of Thakur Anant Singh v. Thakur Durga Singh, to which we have already referred, Lord COLLINS at page 197, said, “It has been pointed out more than once at this Board that there is no class of evidence that is more likely to vary in value according to circumstances than that of the wajib-ul-arzes.” His Lordship then quotes the case of Muhammed Imam Ali Khan v. Husain Khan, [1898] L.R., 25 I.A., 161 and another case of Parbati Kunwar v. Chandarpal Kunwar, [1909] L.R., 36 I.A., 125. 3. Having regard to the circumstances of the present case and bearing in mind that the wajib-ul-arz which has been produced is certainly not a clear record of a custom, but on the contrary appears on the face of it to be a record of a number of arrangements between the co-sharers, adopted for the first time at the settlement of 1867 and binding only during the period of that particular settlement, we think that this wajib-ul-arz was not sufficient to establish the usage claimed by plaintiff and that he has failed to discharge the onus which lay upon him of proving by satisfactory evidence the existence of the usage of pre-emption. We dismiss the appeal with costs.