JUDGMENT : 1. This and the connected appeal No. 582 of 1913 arise out of a suit for pre-emption. The dispute is between rival pre-emptors. Apparently the sole evidence of the existence of the custom of pre-emption was an entry in the wajib-ul-arz of 1295 Fasli. The entry is as follows: Jab koi hissedar hahiat apni muntakil karna chahta hia to awal badast biradar hakiki badhu rishtedar Tcarivi badhu baidi jo shark milkiat hon uske bad digar hissedaran he kath kimat munasib par muntaktl karta hai.” Neither of the parties to the present appeal were in any way interested in denying the existence of a custom of pre-emption. They both relied upon the entry in the wajib-ul-arz as proving that there was such a custom. They are, however, at issue upon what are the incidents of the custom. 2. The plaintiff Jahangira contends that the first two categories of pre-emptors have their rights altogether irrespective of whether they are co-sharers or not. The respondent on the other hand, contends that the words “jo sharik milkiyat hon” qualified all that precedes, that retatives have no right unless they are also co-sharers. The document seems capable of being read in either way. The learned Munsif has read it as Jahangira would like whilst the District Judge who is a Mahomedan, has read it according to the defendant-respondent's contention. 3. We do not think that any reported case can be of the least assistance in this matter. The record in the wajib-ul-arz is not the custom. It is a mere record of the custom; and if its language is ambiguous it may when unsupported by other evidence be insufficient either to prove the custom as a whole or any particular incident of that custom. In be present case the plaintiffs apparently were unable to adduce in evidence a single case in which a near relation, who was not a co-sharer asserted or enforced the right claimed by him in the present suit. We think under these circumstances that the plaintiff failed so prove his case and that his suit was rightly dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.