JUDGMENT
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The property sought to be pre-empted is muafi land which was sold on the 10th of September, 1906. The pre-emptor is a co-sharer in the khalsa land of the village and has no interest in the muafi land in question.
2. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the provision as to pre-emption contained in the wajib-ul-arz of the village did not give any pre-emptive right over muafi land.
3. This view appears to ns to be correct. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to refer us to any case in which a pre-emptive right over muafi, land, as distinguished from resumed muafi, was established in favour of the owner of khalsa land in the village. On the contrary, we have two decisions of this Court bearing upon the question, which are entirely opposed to the contention which has been pressed before us. In the case of Narain Das v. Ram Saran Das 20 A. 419, it was held that co sharers in a nvhal and the owners of separate plots of muafi land included in the area of the mahal have as a rule no connection with one another and it by no means follows that the custom adapted by or existing among the members of the khalsa co-parcenary body would be applicable to the owners of the muafi plots. The learned Judges, who tried that case, held that strict evidence would be necessary to prove that the same custom is applicable to both. In the case of Raghu Nath Prasad v. Kanhhaya Lal A.W.N. (1902) 68, two other learned Judges of this Court held, following the ruling in the case of Narain Dus v. Ram Saran Das 20 A. 419, that as a general rule of construction to be applied to wajib-ul-arzes, the co-sharers of a mahal and the owners of muafi plots in the mahal have no connection with each other. In view of all th6 circumstances of this case and of the language of the wajib--ul-arz before us, we are of opinion that the Courts below rightly dismissed the plaintiff's suit. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs including fees in this Court on the higher scale.