Partial pre-emption is not permitted under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and the pre-emptor is required to deposit the full consideration money for all the plots sold in order to exercise his right of pre-emption.

1. THE question in this Rule for our consideration is that when a transfer is made in respect of number of plots by one of the co-sharers of his undivided share, section 8 of the West Bengal land Reforms Act will apply and moreover what is the amount the pre-emptor will have to deposit if he wants only to pre-empt one of the several plots sought to be sold. Both the courts held against the petitioner. Hence the revision application at the instance of the applicant for pre-emption.

2. MR. Bagchi, on behalf of the plaintiff contended that he wants to pre-empt only one portion of the plot which is an agricultural land and he has deposited the sum which will be the market value of the said plot. It is argued by Mr. Bagchi that the price of one holding which has been deposited is quite sufficient and the petitioner may not be directed to deposit the consideration money for the one transaction because a number of plots were considered and only one plot was sought to be pre-empted.

Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of the opposite parties, however, contended that the petitioner purchased l/3rd undivided share of C. S. Plot No. 1070 along with other plots, therefore, they must not be co-sharers. In view of the full Bench judgment reported in 76 c. W. N. 1058 (Madan M. Ghosh vs. Sishu Bala Atta) they are co-owners of the premises. It is argued that by the full Bench judgment what has been stated is that though there was no partition by metes and bounds between the co-sharers after coming into force of the west Bengal Estates Acquisition Act the co-sharership ceased to exist and all the tenants under the intermediary become direct tenant under the Stats, whether or not there was a partition by metes and bounds. It is argued by Mr. Mukherjee that a co-owner cannot be a boundary man because he has, according to him, right to every bit of the land to which he is a co-owner. Therefore, it is argued by Mr. Mukherjee that he is not a boundary man.

3. THE argument made by Mr. Mukherjee is that co-owners are not boundary men, has a support, a support in the case reported in 1980 (1) C. L. J.,395 (Kedernath Panchadhoyee vs. Nagendra Nath Mahapatra) at page 398, paragraph 7 his Lordship Mr. Justice d. C. Chakravorti held that "the materials on record show that the recorded holding was being held jointly by the pre-emptees, the pre-emptors and others and that there was no partition. Accordingly, it cannot be said that any specific portion of that holding is in possession of the pre-emptors, pre-emptees or others. In such circumstances it cannot be held that the preemptors are holding land adjoining the land transferred. " In my opinion, this is clear that the co-owners cannot be adjoining owners in respect of the same plot which has not been partitioned by metes and bounds. In the case reported in 82 C. W. N.,184 the Division Bench of this Court held that there cannot be any partial pre-emption under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and it cannot be disputed. In the case reported in 76 C. W. N.,1058 Madan M. Ghosh-v. Sishu Bala Atta Mr. Justice mukherjee held that short deposit along with the application is maintainable. As I have already said In the facts of the present case this case has no application and it is clearly distinguishable. In the said case it appears that the value of the land being Rs 750/- was deposited and the value of the structure being Rs. 250/- was not deposited as according to the petitioner there was no structure on the land and the value thereof is fictitious one. In the circumstances, therefore, the learned Judge held that non-deposit of Rs. 250/- is not fatal.

4. IT cannot be denied that the right of pre-emption is a very weak right and can be negatived on some legal principles as has been held by the supreme Court in the case reported in a. I. R. 1960 S. C.,1368 paragraph 14 radhakishan v. Shridhar and A. I. R. 1958 S. C.,838 paragraph, 11 Bishan singh vs. Khazan Singh. In the present case admittedly, the