Full Judgment
1. This a plaintiff's appeal, who came into Court claiming a preferential right of pre-emption as against the vendee. The vendor is the own brother of the pre-emptor. The vendee and the two brothers are descended from the same common great-grandfather. According to the custom alleged by the plaintiff, assuming that the custom does exist, the first right of pre-emption was given to bhai bhatija thank haqiyat. The lower Court has held that the words ' bhai bhatija ' have the wide meaning commonly given to them in the villages of the district, and that this does not mean that an own brother has a preference over a cousin. The second set of pre emptors are co sharers in the patti which might include non relatives;and the third set of pre-emptors are co sharers in the village. The plaintiff earns into Court alleging a custom which give him a right of preference. He produced a wajib-nl-arz the meaning of which on this point is by no means clear. The words bhai bhatija in the vernacular have a far wider meaning than the words 'brothers' and 'nephews' in English. We think that the Court below is perfectly correct in its interpretation. There is no force in this appeal. We dismiss it with costs, including fees on the higher scale.