Subrata Talukdar, J.: This civil revisional application challenges the Order impugned dated 22nd September, 1993 passed by the Learned First Additional District Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia in Misc. Appeal no. 72 of 1992 in preemption proceedings. By the said impugned Order the Learned First Appellate Court was pleased to set aside the Order of the Learned 3rd Civil Court (Junior Division) at Krishnanagar in Misc. Case no. 31 of 1993.

The petitioner-preemptor has challenged the Learned First Appellate Court’s Order by filing this civil revisional application numbered CR 885 of 1994. The preemptees are arrayed as the opposite parties. The Order of the Learned Trial Court dated 29th April, 1992 in Misc. Case no. 31 of 1999 held in favour of the petitioner-preemptor on the following score:-

a) That the petitioner-preemptor was the adjacent owner of the suit premises. Therefore, on the ground of being the adjacent owner the petitioner is entitled to claim the rights of a preemptor. The claim of the petitioner to being a bargadar in the suit premises under the original owners was not accepted by the Learned Trial Court.

b) While holding that the petitioner-preemptor is an adjacent owner of the suit premises the Learned Trial Court took into consideration the partition of the suit premises by a deed no.202 dated 7th September, 1965. The Learned Trial Court was of the view that there was partition of the suit premises by metes and bounds and such partition could not be disproved by the opposite parties. The deed number of the partition with evidence has been submitted before the Learned Trial Court by the petitioner-preemptor.

c) In respect of valuation of the suit premises the Learned Trial Court was pleased not to interfere with the same. According to the preemptor the valuation of the suit land was inflated for the purpose of denying preemption. The suit land was valued at Rs. 40, 000 when, according to the petitioner-preemptor the value could not have been more than Rs. 20, 000. The petitioner-preemptor had deposited a sum of Rs. 20, 000, which, according to him, was the true value while filing the pre-emption proceedings. Thereafter the full balance value of Rs. 22, 000, i.e. value of the land plus statutory compensation was deposited by the petitioner-preemptor before the Learned Trial Court.

In the light of the above noted reasoning the Learned Trial Court was pleased to decree Misc. Case no. 31 of 1990 in favour of the petitioner-preemptor. The petitioner-preemptor was directed to deposit the remaining value with statutory compensation within one month from the date of the Order of the Learned Trial Court.

Being aggrieved the opposite party-preemptee approached the Learned First Additional District Court, Nadia by filing Misc. Appeal no. 72 of 1992. By the Order impugned before this Court dated 22nd September, 1993, the Learned First Appellate Court held as follows:-

a) That the Learned Trial Court was wrong in arriving at the conclusion that the preemptor was an adjoining co-sharer. While it was admitted by the Learned First Appellate Court that the petitioner-preemptor purchased land by two different ‘Kobalas’ and is in possession of such land, there is nothing on record to show the claim of the petitioner-preemptor that there was no partition between the co-sharers. According to the Learned First Appellate Court, excepting a bare statement that there was a partition deed no.202 dated 7th January, 1965, no proof of such partition by way of submitting an original partition deed nor a certified copy thereof has been brought into evidence by the petitioner-preemptor. As the opposite party-preemptor have denied the fact of such partition, such partition was not admitted by the Learned First Appellate Court and her status as adjoining owner was refused.

b) On the point of valuation the Learned First Appellate Court arrived at the finding that the preemptor had deposited only Rs. 22, 000 though he was required to deposit Rs.