( 1 ) THIS Rule has been referred to a Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court. The circumstances which induced the learned Judges of the Division Bench 'to refer the Rule to the Full Bench is that there is a conflict between two Division Bench judgments of this Court on the following point as formulated by them:--"whether an application for preemption can be resisted by a party under the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956, who has ceased to be a co-sharer on the date of hearing of the application even though he was a co-sharer on the day the application was made. "the Division Bench decisions which are said to be conflicting on the point are Bidyut Baran De v. Nityananda Das, (1969) 73 Cal WN 654 and Karamali Sheikh v. Necher Ali Sheikh, in Civil Rule No. 1926 of 1968, disposed of on October 7, 1969 (Cal ). It may be stated at the outset that the point referred to above has not been correctly formulated by the Division Bench which will appear from the facts of the case which are stated hereafter.

( 2 ) ONE Mohammad Sepai was admittedly a co-sharer of the disputed holding. On January 4, 1964, by a registered Kobala he transferred to the oppos