The main legal point established in the judgment is that cosharers have the right of preemption under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act to prevent intrusion of strangers into family property, and the sale of joint/ejmali property to a third party without partition amongst the cosharers is invalid.

JUDGMENT

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. This instant revisional application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India emanates from the judgment and order dated 18.03.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court at Purulia in connection with Misc. Appeal No. 13 of 2004 which arose out of the order/judgment dated 06.02.2004 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Purulia in connection with Misc. Case No. 94 of 1994.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgments and orders the present petitioners have preferred this instant application.

3. The petitioner No. 1 (since deceased) filed a case under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 against the pre-emptee/predecessor-ininterest of the present petitioner no(s). 1(a) and 1(b) in respect of land recorded in R.S. Khatian No. 69 of Mouza Paika, District Purulia. It is undisputed that the said land originally belonged to one Gangadhar Panda. The said Gangadhar Panda died in the year 1970 leaving behind his three sons namely, Banshidhar Panda (since deceased), Sanatan Panda, Mahadev Panda (opposite party No. 2 herein) and three daughters namely Ananda Debi, Biraj Debi, Srirupa Debi and widow Smt. Bala Debi. On the death of said Gangadhar Panda all his properties including subject land devolved upon his aforesaid three sons, three daughters and widow having 1/7th share each therein. Thereafter, the said 3 daughters and widow of late Gangadhar Panda transferred their respective shares i.e. 4/7th undivided share in the scheduled property in favour of two sons of late Gangadhar Panda i.e. Banshidhar and Mahadev by dint of registered deed of gift dated 9.07.1985 and gave them possession.

4. Thereafter dispute started when the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners gave out in the village in the 3rd week of July, 1994 that he has purchased a portion of the above mentioned plot of land under R.S. Khatian No. 69 from the opposite party No. 2 (herein) by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 28.06.1994. The preemptor specifically took the point that no notice of the registration of the deed executed by opposite party No. 2 herein Mahadev Panda was served upon them under Section 5 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and the preemptor after procuring the certified copy of the deed came to learn for the first time that the opposite party No. 2 Mahadev Panda sold the subject property to the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 28.06.1994. Finding no other alternative, the preemptor/the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite party Nos. 1(a) to 1(i) filed an application before the Trial Court under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act with a prayer for getting the order of preemption in respect of the case property. Preemptors/petitioners (herein) entered appearance before the Trial Court and contested the case by taking plea that Mahadev Panda (O.P No. 2 herein) transferred his entire share to the present petitioners and as there is no cosharership, order of preemption in respect of case land cannot be passed in favour of the preemptor in view of the amended provision of Sections 2, 6 and 7 of the West Bengal L.R. Act. It is specifically contended by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the present petitioners that the First Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the true spirit of Section 8 of the W.B.L.R Act and both the Courts below passed the order illegally and with material irregularity. According to the present petitioners learned Courts below failed to appreciate the position of law in its proper perspective. According to him if demarcated and entire share of a property has been sold out in the case property ground of cosharership does not lie.

5. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the present petitioners that the preemptor in the preemption proceeding in the Courts below did not make any