The period of limitation for filing an application for pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, starts running from the date of completion of registration of the deed of transfer, and not from the date of execution of the deed of transfer.

This Rule is directed against the judgment and order dated May 12, 1978 of the Court of Appeal below reversing those passed by the learned Munsif on an application under S. 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are as follows:

The Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 4 on November 27, filed an application under S. 8 of the Act alleging that the Opposite Party No. 5 Baskar Chandra Giri transferred to the present petitioners Kedarnath and Janakinath 10 decimals of land out of Plot No. 1090 and 16 decimals out Plot No. 1092, both appertaining to Khatian No. 996, that the kobala whereby aforesaid transfer was made was executed on April 19, 1970 and the registration thereof was completed on September 5 and 16 decimals out Plot No. 1092, both appertaining to Khatian No. 996, that the kobala whereby aforesaid transfer was made was executed on April 19, 1970 and the registration thereof was completed on September 5, 1970 and that the (the Opposite Parties) were co-sharers in respect of the Jama in question and were also the owners of land adjoining the land transferred.

3. The present petitioners who were the pre-emptees resisted the said application under S. 8 and denied that the said pre-emptors were co-sharers in the Jama in question or that they were the holders of land adjoining the land transferred. Those objectors also claimed to have purchased 10 decimals of land out of said Plot No. 1090 from one of the co-sharers, namely, Srihari Patra by a kobala dated November 11, 1957 and thus they came to be co-sharers and also claimed to be holders of land adjoining the land transferred.

4. The learned Munsif who initially heard the case dismissed the said application under S. 8. On an appeal being preferred from the decision of the learned Munsif the Court of Appeal below while rejecting the case of the pre-emptors that they were co-sharers sent the case back on remand to the learned Munsif for affording the pre-emptors an opportunity of proving their case of ownership of adjoining land. Further evidence on the question involved was adduced after such remand and the learned Munsif again dismissed the application under S. 8 holding that the pre-emptors were neither co-sharers nor owners of land adjoining the land transferred. There was again an appeal from that decision of the learned Munsif. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the learned Munsif's decision and the application for pre-emption was allowed. The Court of Appeal this time held that the application for pre-emption should be allowed on the ground of the pre-emptors being holders of land adjoining the land transferred.

5. At the hearing of this Rule the learned Lawyers representing the parties agreed that the question whether the pre-emptors were co-sharers in respect of the concerned holding cannot now be gone into inasmuch as by earlier concurrent finding of both the Courts below that question was finally decided and the same cannot be re-agitated at this stage. Thus, we have to proceed on the footing that the pre-emptors failed to prove the case that they were co-sharers of the concerned holding.

6. The only question, therefore, that requires determination is whether the pre-emptors are entitled to pre-empt in their capacity of owners of land adjoining the land transferred.

7. Mr. Purna Chandra Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that the Court of Appeal below was wrong in taking up for consideration a new case which was not the case of the pre-emptors as disclosed in their original application under S. 8 or even in their application as it stood after amendment. Accordingly he argued that the Courts of Appeal below acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in having taken up for consideration such a new case. Admittedly, in the original application the case of pre-emptors is that the concerned holding which is rec