JUDGMENT Henry Richards, C.J.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The vendor was a Muhammadan of the Shia sect. The plaintiff Alleged in the plaint that there was a custom under which he, as a co-sharer with the vendor, was entitled to a right of pre-emption. The evidence in support of a custom was an extract from the wajib-ul-arz, which simply stated that in matters of pre emption the rights were according to faith. This is certainly a very vague entry. As a matter of fact the vendor and the pre-emptor are Shias and the best view of the law of preemption amongst Shias is that there is no right where there are more than two co-sharers. No doubt there is considerable authority the other way, but the best view appears to be that amongst Shias there is no right of pre-emption where there are more than two co-sharers. In the present case there are more than two co-sharers and it was upon this ground that the Court below dismissed the suit. In my opinion the plaintiff by the production of this vague entry from the wajib-ul-arz did not prove the existence of a custom which entitled him as a co-sharer to purchase Zemindari which was sold by another Shia merely upon the ground that he was a oo-sharer, where it is admitted there were several other co-sharers. I think that the decision of the Court below should be affirmed, and I would dismiss the appeal.
Tudball, J.
2. I fully agree. The ruling in Abbas Ali v. Maya Ram 12 A. 229; A.W.N. (1890) 93 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N. s.) 895 has been consistently followed in this Court for a long series of years.
3. The order of the Court is that we dismiss the appeal with costs.