JUDGMENT :

TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J.

1. The appeal being FA 67 of 2023 has been preferred by one Parbati Jana (in short, Parbati) challenging the order dated 31st March, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st Court, Contai, District–Purba Medinipur in Misc. Judicial Case No. 31 of 2011 in connection with a partition being Title Suit No. 178 of 2009. By the order impugned in the appeal, the learned Court below was pleased to allow the application for preemption filed under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 (in short, the Partition Act) by the defendant no. 2, namely, Jayanta Kumar Panda (since deceased) (in short, Jayanta) directing him to submit the present market valuation of the case property assessed by the ADSR Contai-I and to pay the said amount in Court within 60 days from the date of the order.

2. The other appeal being FA 68 of 2023 has been preferred by Parbati challenging the order dated 11th September, 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st Court, Contai, District – Purba Medinipur in Misc. Judicial Case No. 31 of 2011 by which the time to deposit the market valuation of the case property was extended till 10th November, 2017.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that one Taranath Panda (in short, Taranath) was the original owner of the subject plot no. 704. On 24th February, 1989, he transferred a specific demarcated portion of 13 decimals of the said plot in favour of one Smt. Anupama Sahoo (in short, Anupama). After the death of Taranath, the remaining 10 decimals of land in plot no. 704 devolved upon his only son, namely, Jayanta and five daughters, namely, Kalyani Panda, Kajal Sau, Gita Maity, Chaina Panda and Jagadamba Panda, in equal share. Four daughters of Taranath thereafter transferred their share in plot no. 704 to Jayanta on 7th November, 2006 whereas Kalyani Panda transferred 2 decimals of land in plot no. 704 to Parbati on 16th May, 2007 and her name was duly incorporated in the record of rights. Parbati, thereafter, filed a suit for partition being Title Suit no. 178 of 2009 against Anupama Sahoo and Jayanta inter alia praying for partition and demarcation of her portion in the subject plot being plot no. 704, adjacent to plot no. 703 of which she was the absolute owner. The defendant no. 1 in the said suit, namely, Anupama also filed a counter-claim praying for declaration to be the absolute owner in respect of ‘X’ schedule property purchased from Taranath. Upon contest, the suit was decreed in preliminary form against the defendants in part declaring that Parbati had 1/6th share and Jayanta had 5/6th share in 10 decimals of land comprised in schedule ‘Ka’ excluding the property in ‘X’ schedule of the counter-claim. By the said judgment and decree, the counter claim of Anupama was also decreed on contest against Parbati and Jayanta declaring that Anupama is the absolute owner in possession of the land measuring 13 decimals in schedule ‘X’. After the partition suit was decreed in preliminary form on 31st May, 2011, Jayanta filed the application under Section 4 of the Partition Act. As both the appeals arise out of the same Misc. Judicial Case No. 31 of 2011, with the consent of the parties and dispensing with all formalities, the same have been heard analogously.

4. Mr. Maity, learned advocate appearing for the appellant in both the appeals argues that the plot of land being no. 704 is a vacant land and 1/6th share in the said plot was sold by Kalyani Panda to her by a deed no. 1936 of 2007. She had been possessing the same by making a path and planting trees. The said portion is adjacent to her house situated at plot no. 703. In the plot no. 704 there is no undivided family dwelling house and Jayanta had no right to claim pre-emption applying the provisions of Section 4 of the Partition Act.

5. According to her, the 1/6th share in plot no. 704 is a demarcated portion and Parbati is in possession of the same and the said portion is being used as a pa