An application for pre-emption filed on the basis of an inchoate right is not inherently non-maintainable. If the right matures during the pendency of the application, the court may treat the application as if it were filed on the date of maturity, thereby avoiding unnecessary litigation and doing complete justice between the parties.

( 1 ) THESE two revisional applications arise out of as many pre-emption proceedings. Since both of them involve a common question as to whether an application for pre-emption filed on the basis of an inchoate right should be dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability notwithstanding the fact that such a right matured as an effective right pending the proceeding, we have heard them together. There is no dispute about the material facts and they may be set out shortly.

( 2 ) IN C. O. 2141 of 1981, the petitioners claiming themselves to be co-sharers, filed an application for preemption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, against the opposite party in respect of a sale in his favour of 48 acres of land appertaining to Plot No. 646 Khatian 682 of Mouza Badanganj, P. S. Goghat, District 24 Parganas. The sale deed was executed on June 14, 1974 and the same was presented for registration on June 15, 1974. The registration was made complete under Section 61 of the Registration Act on April 12, 1975, but in the meantime on August 26, 1974, the application for pre-emption was filed. Though the application came up for hearing long after the date of completion of registration, the learned Munsif by his order dated May 31, 1979, dismissed the application solely on the ground that the application as filed was premature. On an appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge affirmed the said order of the learned Munsif. According to the learned Subordinate Judge, the fact that registration was made complete pending the proceedings, is inconsequential because he thought on the authority of the decision of this court in the case of Kalipada Ghosh v. Dulal Chandra Ghosh, (1978) 82 Cal WN 950 the right to pre-empt must exist both on the date of the application and on the date of the order. Feeling aggrieved, the preemptors have preferred the present revisional application.

( 3 ) IN C. R. 326 of 1980, the petitioner purchased a portion of R. S. Plot No. 1523 Khatian 169 Mouza Kutubpur Fulbari, P. S. Englishbazar Malda on April 30, 1976, and on that date the sale deed was presented for registration. Such registration, however, was not made complete until 1981 and in the meantime on April 25, 1977, the opposite party filed the application for pre-emption under Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. Such application was allowed on contest by the learned Subordinate Judge by an order dated May 8, 1978, and an appeal by the pre-emptee petitioner failed and was dismissed on August 9, 1979. Feeling aggrieved the pre-emptee has obtained the above Rule on a revisional application raising a point that since registration was not complete when the application was filed or the orders were passed by the courts below, the application should have been dismissed. In this rule another point on merits had also been raised which would be referred to hereinafter in our judgment.

( 4 ) IN view of the facts set out hereinbefore, it is undisputed that on the date the respective two applications for pre-emption were filed, the registration of the respective sale deeds had not been completed in terms of Section 61 of the Registration Act, it is also not in dispute that a right of pre-emption either under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act or under Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act accrue when the land is transferred and that such transfer can be made only by a registered document. Such being the position it is now well settled that such right of pre-emption does not become mature until the registration is made complete on fulfilment of all the formalities under Section 51 of the Registration Act. Reference may be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Ram Saran v. Domini Kuer, and Hiralal Aggarwal v. Rampadarath Singh, and the decision of this court in the case of Malay Kumar v. Rabindra Nath, (1977) 1 Cal LJ 92. It must, therefore, be held that in both the cases n