1. The only question in this appeal which arises out of a suit for pre-emption is that of the interpretation to be placed on the wajib-ul-arz on which the plaintiffs rely as proving the custom set up by them. The vendor and the plaintiffs are co-sharers in the same patti and in the same khata of the Tehewat. The vendee is a co-sharer in the village but in a different patti. The plaintiffs claim a preferential right to pre-empt the property on the ground of being co-sharers in the patti. The wajib-ul-arz of the village is worded in a peculiar manner. It provides that a co-sharer, who wishes to sell or mortgage his share must offer it first to his co-shaier in the village (sharik dehi), after him to a hissadar patti degree by degree and after him to a hissadar in the village degree by degree, and after these persons he may sell or mortgage to a stranger. It is contended on behalf of the vendor that as he is a co-sharer in the village he is a pre-emptor of the first class and takes priority over the plaintiffs who are pre-emptors of the second class according to the wajib-ul-arz. The Courts below are of opinion that words sharik dehi in the first Clause are redundant and meaningless and must be rejected. In our opinion those Courts were right. It seems to us that some error crept into the copy of the wajib-ul-arz which is on the Settlement register. Otherwise the first Clause would make the whole document 'unmeaning. A Mssadnr in the patti is also a co-sharer in the village. Therefore, if by the first Clause it was intended that the first right of pre-emption will vest in a hissadar in the village, the other clauses would be unnecessary and unmeaning. It seems to us that the wajib-ul-arz should be construed as giving the first right of pre-emption to a co-sharer in the patti, and after him to a co-sharer in the village. The first Clause is clearly inconsistent with the third. The second and third clauses are plain and unambiguous. The first Clause is consistent with neither of them and, therefore, under the circumstances must be rejected. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal with costs.