The completion of registration under Section 61 of the Registration Act is crucial in determining the date of transfer for pre-emption rights, and the point of limitation must be raised at the earliest stage with supporting evidence.

JUDGMENT :

BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.

1. The petitioners before this Court are the opposite parties in a case under Section 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955 and respondent in the appeal before the appellate Court which decided the appeal against order of Trial Judge passed in case under Section 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and is aggrieved by the said Order dated December 22, 2021 passed by Learned Additional District Judge, Re-designated Court at Midnapore District Midnapore (West) in Misc. Appeal No. 9 of 2015, being the appellate court.

2. The case of the opposite parties before Learned Trial Court may be summed up thus:

(1) The father of the opposite parties namely Haripada Maity had 4 anna share i.e. 4 decimal in R.S. plot No. 1158 16 decimals in total. The R.S. plot no. 1158 has been renumbered as 1297 during LR operation. LR ROR in respect of 4 decimal in LR plot no. 1297 stands in the name of Haripada Maity.

(2) On 13/11/1984 Haripada Maity gifted out 4 decimal in RS plot no. 1158 along with other property to his three sons who are the present opposite parties and Ajit Kr. Maity. The said registered deed of gift was duly accepted by the opposite parties and Ajit Kr. Maity. Thus the opposite parties along with their brother Ajit Kr. Maity possess the gifted property. Hence the opposite parties are the co-sharers in RS dag no. 1158 having 2 2/3 share.

(3) One Sudhir Ch. Maity is one of the co-sharer in respect of the plot no. 1158 having 8 decimal land in plot no. 1158.

(4) The opposite parties, Sudhir Ch. Maity and other co-sharers possessed the disputed plot no. 1158 as per their shares and no partition was held among the co-sharers.

(5) Thereafter, Sudhir Ch. Maity sold out Ka Schedule property measuring 8 decimal to the petitioners by registered deed of sale, which the opposite parties came to know from the people.

(6) The opposite parties obtained a certified copy of the sale deed on 07/04/2008 and came to know that on 31/08/1996 Sudhir Ch. Maity has sold out Ka Schedule property by registered deed of sale at a consideration money of Rs. 30,000/- and the said sale deed was entered in the volume on 18/03/2008.

(7) The petitioners are totally strangers to the disputed RS plot no. 1158 whereas the opposite parties are the co-sharers of the disputed plot. Thus the opposite parties are entitled to pre-empt Ka schedule property.

3. The petitioners contested the case by denying all the material allegations. According to the petitioners Sudhir Ch. Maity was individual Rayat in respect of RS Plot No. 1158. The petitioners contended that the father of the opposite parties was not a co-sharer in respect of the property of Sudhir Ch. Maity in the disputed plot. Haripada Maity had a separate plot of land in dag no. 1158. There was no relation in between plot of land of Sudhir Ch. Maity and Haripada Maity. It was further contended by the petitioners that Sudhir Ch. Maity had demarcated his plot of land from the other co-sharers of plot no. 1158 out of mutual arrangement and thus he enjoyed his share as his entire plot of land. The opposite parties never possessed any un-demarcated interest or un-demarcated possession in the plot of land of Sudhir Ch. Maity in disputed plot no. 1158. It was also contended by the petitioners that they were Bargadar in the plot of land of Sudhir Ch. Maity in the disputed Plot and have been cultivating the same and delivering the produce on proper receipt when Sudhir Ch. Maity expressed his desire to sell out the entire 8 decimal of Land in the disputed plot then the opposite parties agreed to purchase the same at a very lower rate than the market value to which Sudhir Ch. Maity did not agree. The opposite parties were thus annoyed and the petitioners expressed their desire to purchase the same. Thus according to the petitioners, they in the said circumstances purchased Ka schedule property on 31/08/1996 which was within the knowledge of the opposite parties.

4. Learned Trial Court up