JUDGMENT :

(Arijit Banerjee, J.) :

1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated October 4, 1996, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah in Misc. Appeal no. 166 of 1992 arising out of an order dated May 29, 1992 passed by the learned Munsif, Additional Court, Uluberia in L.R. Case no. 59 of 1988.

2. The relevant facts of the case are as follows.

3. Plot no. 1121 of Mauza Banitabla, P.S. – Uluberia, District - Howrah, was sold by One Ajit Ghosh and Ors. to petitioner nos. 1 to 8 and the predecessors-in-interest of the other petitioners by sale deed dated December 12, 1985. One Tarak Das Ghosh filed L.R. Case no. 1 of 1987 in the Court of learned Munsif, Uluberia, Howrah, under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, to pre-empt the said sale on the ground that he is a co-sharer raiyat and also on the ground of vicinage, claiming that he had the longest common boundary with the disputed land. Although the land in question was sold in favour of the petitioners at and for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/-, Tarak deposited only Rs. 1,100/- claiming that Rs. 6,000/- shown in the sale deed was an inflated figure. The petitioners herein contested the said L.R. Case by filing written statement wherein they denied the material averments made in the application for pre-emption.

4. The said case was transferred to learned Munsif, Additional Court, Uluberia and was renumbered as L.R. Case no 59 of 1988. By an order dated May 29, 1992, the learned First Court allowed the application for pre-emption.

5. The petitioners filed an appeal against the said order before the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah, being Misc. Appeal No. 166 of 1992. By a judgment and order dated October 4, 1996, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioners. That order is the subject matter of challenge in the present revisional application.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at length and have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties.

7. The learned First Court negated the contention of the pre-emptor that he was a co-sharer. However, it was held that the pre-emptor was a boundary man and the purchasers were strangers. The prayer for pre- emption was allowed on the basis of vicinage. The pre-emptor or subsequently his successors-in-interest did not challenge the finding of the First Court that the pre-emptor was not a co-sharer. Such finding has therefore attained finality. The First Court also negated the pre-emptor’s contention that the amount of Rs. Six thousand shown in the sale deed as consideration for the disputed land was an inflated amount. However, the pre-emptor was allowed to deposit the balance consideration money plus 10 per cent of the said amount within two months from the date of the order.

8. The Appellate Court affirmed the order of the Trial Court. It held that the appellants could not establish their plea that the disputed land is separated by a canal from the land of the pre-emptor.

9. Before me, in this revisional application, the following points were urged by learned Advocate for the petitioners:-

(i) No right of pre-emption arose in this case as the under sold his entire land to the purchaser.

(ii) In the absence of the pre-emptor depositing the entire consideration money shown in the impugned sale deed plus 10 per cent thereof, the application for pre-emption was not maintainable.

(iii) The learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to entertain or allow the application and then permit the plaintiff/pre-emptor to deposit the balance sum of money within 2 months.

10. Learned Advocate for the opposite party disputed each of the above contentions and submitted that the orders of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court do not call for intervention.

11. In my considered opinion, each of the points argued on behalf of the petitioner has merits. Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (in short,