JUDGMENT Sulaiman, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The learned District Judge conceded that the entry in the wajib-ul-are relied upon by the plaintiff was a prima facie evidence, which ought ordinarily to be taken as evidence of custom. He however held that in view of the peculiar circumstances, disclosed by the "halat dehi," the presumption had been rebutted. He referred to the circumstances that the village was originally a " muafi" village and was populated by some Gosain, after whom it is now named. This however happened more than a hundred years ago and the exact date cannot be ascertained. The learned Judge thought that in 1216 Fasli the village was confiscated and a settlement was made with certain Thakurs. It however appears that it was muafi originally and the muafi was only resumed owing to the refusal of the previous holders to pay the revenue assessed thereon. The learned Judge then goes on to Bay that between the years 1842 (1824 is a misprint) and 1864 there were seven cases of sales. He therefore thought that the presumption had been rebutted. We may point out that out of the seven sales three were auction-sales about which by virtue of any custom there could have been no right of pre-emption asserted. Further we find that with the exception of three sales of 1842, 1853 and 1854 the others were cases of sales to co-sharers. It is also not quite clear that even with regard to these three cases the transferees were necessarily strangers and not co-sharers, as the khewats for these periods have not been produced. In any case we do not consider that the three instances of sales to strangers, assuming that there had been such transfers, would necessarily negative the existence of the custom, It may well be that these sales were not objectionable to the co-sharers or that the purchaser had offered prices so high as to make it impossible for the co-sharers to outbid them. We set aside the decree of the Court below and decree the plaintiff's claim with costs. The finding as regards consideration is not now challenged. The decree will be subject to the payment of Rs. We set aside the decree of the Court below and decree the plaintiff's claim with costs. The finding as regards consideration is not now challenged. The decree will be subject to the payment of Rs. 436-4-0 on or before the 2nd of July, 1924, In case of payment the plaintiff will get his costs in all courts including in this Court fees on the higher scale. In case of default the plaintiff's suit shall stand dismissed with costs in all courts including in this Court fees on the higher scale. 2. We may note that the sum of Rs. 436-4 is quite independent of any sum which the plaintiff may be liable to pay, if at all, to the prior mortgagee mentioned in the sale-deed.