A contiguous land holder is entitled to the same benefit of limitation as a non-notified co-sharer under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in the matter of exercising the right of pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

This is a revisional application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure directed against the order dated 16th July, 1990 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 96 of 1988 arising out of Misc. Case No. 56 of 1985 under Section 8 of the W.B.L.R. Act.

2. The present petitioner filed a case for pre-emption against the Opposite Party-Gopal Chandra Halder in respect of Plot No. 1368 under Khatian No. 1638 of Mouza Jorehat, P. S. Sankrail on the ground of vicinage. According to her she purchased five decimals of land of Plot No. 1366 of Khatian No. 423 of the same Mouza by two Sale Deeds namely one dated 28.7.66 and the other dated 1.6.81. The transfer that gave rise to the preemption case against the Opposite Party took place• on 17.8.79. The Opposite Party raised objection that the case was barred by limitation and the purchase of the petitioner was subsequent to the purchase of the Opposite Party.

3. The learned Trial Court did not accept the plea of limitation but found that the purchase by the petitioner took place in 1981, when the purchase to be pre-empted took place in 1979 and on the last ground the learned Trial Court dismissed the case. There was a Misc. Appeal before the learned Additional District Judge and the learned Appellate Court found that the finding of the Trial Court on the point of limitation was erroneous and that when the entire plot was purchased by the Opposite Party, no question of pre• emption as co-sharer could be raised. And the learned Appellate Court also dismissed the Appeal.

4. On being aggrieved by the judgments of dismissal passed by both the Courts below the present revisional application bas been filed before this Court.

5. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant-Petitioner that when in Appeal, the findings on the question of limitation was not challenged, the Appellate Court was not free to re-open that question. The question of limitation is a question of law and definitely the Appellate Court can look into such question even if it is not raised before it.

6. The second point placed before me by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that, the learned Appellate Court committed error by holding that the entire plot has been transferred and as such no question of pre-emption on the ground of co-sharership could be there.

7. I find that the claim of pre emption in the instant case is not based on co-sharership but on the ground of vicinage. It has been mentioned in the judgment of the Trial Court that by the purchase of 1966 which was prior to the transfer to be pre-empted was in respect of two decimals of land and the common boundary was very small or course, the subsequent purchase in 1981 provided a longer common boundary but that purchase of 1981 was subsequent to the transfer to be pre-empted and the benefit of such purchase cannot be claimed by the petitioner.

8. That apart Section 8 begins with "If a portion or share of a holding of a Rayot is transferred to any person other than a co-sharer in the holding, any co-sharer Rayot of the holding may exercise the right of pre-emption".

9. Thus, it is clear from the language of Section 8 of the W. B. L. R. Act that the right of pre-emption accrues only if a portion or share of a holding is transferred to a stranger and as such it keeps out of the ambit of the right of pre• emption, the case, where the entire holding is transferred.

10. In the instant case, the learned First Appellate Court observed in his judgment that as the entire plot in question i. e. Plot No. 1368 was purchased by the Opposite Party, the pre-emption case is not maintainable. 'Entire holding' does not mean one single plot. Specially, after 14.4.81 i. e. when the amended Section 25 of the W. B. L. H. R. Act came into force, the definition of holding as it was contained in Section 2(6) of the W. B. L. R. Act has been radically changed. The holding does not mean only land held by Rayot as a unit for assessment of revenue as contemplated before such amendment.