The starting point of limitation for filing an application for pre-emption under Article 97 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is determined by the possession of the property sold and the completion of registration of the deed of sale.

JUDGMENT

Biswajit Basu, J. - The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the pre-emptees in a proceeding under Section 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1955' in short) and is directed against the judgment and order dated August 06, 2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kandi, District- Murshidabad in Misc. Appeal (L.R.) No. 03 of 2019 thereby affirming the judgment and order dated January 05, 2019 passed by the 1st Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kandi in Misc. (L.R.) Case No. 25 of 2016.

2. The pre-emptors, the opposite parties herein, filed an application under Section 8 of the said Act of 1955 in the 1st Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kandi, District- Murshidabad being the aforesaid Misc. (L.R.) Case No. 25 of 2016 to pre-empt the transfer of suit property in favour of the pre-emptees.

3. The pre-emptors sought to pre-empt the said transfer on the ground that they being non-notified co-sharers of the suit plots are entitled to pre- empt the said transfer. The main ground on which the pre-emptees resisted the said claim of the pre-emptors was that the application for pre-emption being filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation is not maintainable.

4. The learned Trial Judge overruling the said objection of the pre- emptees allowed the said application for pre-emption holding that the pre- emptee no. 1, the petitioner no.1 herein, in his cross-examination has admitted that the pre-emptees came into the possession of the suit properties in the month of December, 2015 as the Bargadar was cultivating the suit land and within one year thereafter, on June 30, 2016 the application for pre-emption was filed, i.e. within the period of limitation prescribed under Article 97 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act of 1963' in short).

5. The petitioners assailed the said judgment and order in the connected Miscellaneous Appeal. The appeal Court below by the impugned judgment and order has dismissed the said appeal, thereby has affirmed the said judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge.

6. Mr. Soumik Ganguly, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the suit property since was under the possession of the Bargadar, in terms of Article 97 of the said Act of 1963 the application for pre-emption was required to be filed within one year from March 01, 2015 i.e. the date of completion of the registration of the impugned deed of sale, but it was filed on June 30, 2016 which is much beyond the said period of limitation.

7. Mr. Ganguly further argues that both the Courts below have committed error of law in treating the starting point of limitation from the date when the Bargadar of the suit lands surrendered the possession of the suit property in favour of the pre-emptees and to fortify his said argument, refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sardar Singh vs. Smt. Dalip Kaur & Ors. reported in AIR 1981 Punjab and Haryana 340.

8. Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, learned advocate for the preemptors/opposite parties, on the other hand, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhnandan Singh & Ors. vs. Jamiat Singh & Ors., reported in AIR 1971 SC 1158 submits that the possession referred to in Article 97 of the said Act of 1963 means actual possession not the constructive possession. He argues that the pre-emptees were in constructive possession of the suit property through the Bargadar, they came into the actual possession of the suit property after such possession is surrendered by the Bargadar in their favour, therefore, according to him, both the Courts below have rightly held that the limitation to file the said application for pre-emption began to run from the date the pre-emptees came into actual possession of the suit property.

9. He further argues that the rec