SITA RAM TEWARI Vs. FOUJDAR RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this second appeal is whether the custom of pre- emption upon which the plaintiff relied was proved.

(2.) The only document put forward in proof of this custom was a wajib-ul-arz which was prepared in the year 1909 after a partition had taken place in the village. It seems to be the case that when partition is made it is the duty of the Collector or Assistant Collector to prepare a fresh, Record of Rights. This, as is pointed by the learned Counsel for the respondent, was laid down in the case reported as Dalganjan Singh V/s. Kalka Singh 22 A. 1 : A.W.N. (1899) 111 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1035 (F.B.) .

(3.) We take it, therefore, that tins wajib-ul-arz prepared in the year 1909 can be looked at for the purpose of ascertaining whether it records a custom.