The right of pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act arises when there is a complete transfer of a share or portion of a raiyati holding in favor of a person other than a co-sharer tenant. The period of limitation prescribed by Section 8(1) for making a preemption application by a contiguous tenant begins to run when the registration of the document is completed and the transfer becomes effective.

1. On October 10, 1966, Surendralal Sinha Choudhury. and Jyotirindralal Sinha Choudhury executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner, minor Malay Kumar Bera represented by his guardian Smt. Renuka Bera conveying 1 acre 7 decimals of land comprised in plots Nos. 3879, 3881, 3892 and 1889 appertaining to Khatian No. 622, Moma Lakshmi, P.S. Khejuria, District Midnapore. The said Kobala was presented for registration on November 17, 1966. The endorsements and certificates referred to and mentioned in Sections 59 arid 60 of the Registration Act, and thereafter copies in the margin of the relevant register book in terms of Section 61 of the Registration Act were completed on December 19, 1966.

2. On April 3, 1967, Rabindranath Bera, who is the Opposite Party in the present Rule filed in the Office of the Revenue Officer, Contai, an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 alleging that he was a co-sharer tenant of the raiyati holding comprised in Khatian No. 622, Mouza Lakshmi, P.S. Khejuri. He also claimed to be a contiguous tenant. He alleged that minor Malay Kumar Bera was not a co-sharer and, therefore he was entitled to pre-empt the aforesaid transfer made by Surendralal Sinha Choudhury and Jyotindralal Sinha Choudhury in favour of Malay Kumar Bera. The Venders, Malay Kumar Bera, opposed the said pre-emption application filed by Rabindra Nath Bera. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Court of Munsif, 1st Court, Contai. The learned Munsif, 1st Court, Contai by his order dated 10th April, 1973 dismissed the pre-emption application filed by Rabindranath Bera finding that the real purchaser was Sudhindra Nath Bera, the father of the minor Malay Kumar Bera, who was only his benamdar. Said Sudhindranath Bera was already a co-sharer tenant of the Jama and, therefore, the provisions of Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act did not apply in the case.

3. Rabindranath Bera, being aggrieved by the said order preferred a miscellaneous appeal. The learned District Judge, Midnapore, by his order dated 13th April, 1974 dismissed the said appeal. The learned District Judge held that the pre-emptor was not a co-sharer tenant of the holding on the date of transfer in question. Therefore, the pre-emptor was not entitled to claim pre-emption as a co-sharer of the holding. The learned District Judge also agreed with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Munsif that Sudhindranath Bera, the father of Malay Kumar Bera was the real purchaser of the disputed properties but he held that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in (1) Madan Mohon v. Sishu Bala, 76 CWN 1058, Sudhindranath was no longer a co-sharer. The pre-emptor was found to be admittedly a contiguous tenant owning lands adjoining the disputed properties. But his application was held to be barred by limitation. The District Judge took 17th November, 1966 as the date of the transfer whereas the pre-emption application was filed, on April 3, 1967, i.e. more than four months after the date of the transfer.

4. Thereafter, Rabindranath Bera filed an application purported to be under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code for review of the judgment dated 30th August, 1974 passed by the learned District Judge, Midnapore dismissing the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 139 of 1973. On 29th July, 1975 the learned District Judge, Midnapore, allowed the said review application. He allowed the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 139 of 1973 and allowed Rabindranath's prayer as a contiguous tenant under Section 8(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act against the opposite party in respect of the properties described in the Schedule of the petition. The learned District Judge held that his predecessor-in-office had committed an error apparent on the face of the record by talking 17th November, 1966 as the date of transfer. The effective date of registration of the Kobala in favour of Malay Kumar Bera was 19th December, 1966 when provisions of Sectio