(1.) These two appeals have been heard and argued together and are to be decided on one common ground. The question in both cases is whether the existence of the custom of pre-emption was established. The lower Appellate Court has held that the custom was established and it has given a decree for pre- emption accordingly.
(2.) It is now argued before us that the evidence upon which the learned Judge relied in his finding was not adequate to establish the existence of the custom alleged.
(3.) We may say at once that the case in many respects resembled a case which was reported in Sarju Rai V/s. Bhuinlot Misir 11 Ind. Cas. 258 : 8 A.L.J. 947.