IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Pre-emption – In a proceeding of pre-emption question of title in respect of title deeds rarely come up for adjudication as right of pre-emption is not a personal right and is attached with land.
(2) Right of pre-emption is a weak piece of right but is a statutory right.

JUDGMENT

Chaitali Chatterjee Das, J.—This revisional application is directed against the judgement and order of reversal passed on 29th day of June, 2024 by the Learned Appellate Court in Misc. Appeal No.180 of 2023, setting aside the Judgement and order dated 19th October 2023 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) Ghatal, Pashim Medinipur whereby the pre-emption suit was dismissed.

Genesis of the case

2. The suit property originally belonged to one Ganesh Chandra Maity who died before Promulgation of Hindu Succession Act 1956, leaving and surviving his only son Krishna Chandra Maity and four daughters namely Kumari Rushibala, Kusum and Basanbala .Being the sole male heir, said Krishna Chandra inherited the entire property as the Hindu Succession Act was not promulgated at that point of time. The pre-emptor /Opposite Parties are the widow and son of Ramsaran who was the only son of Rushibala, the sister of Krishna Chandra.

3. On 13th January, 1959 Krishna Chandra Gifted 1/3rd Share of his landed properties in favour of Sital Duary who was the son of Basanabala the other sister and 2/3rd share in favour of Ramsaran by way of two Registered Deeds of Arpannama. Ramsaran died after promulgation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, leaving behind his widow Kamala Samanta and Maniklal and the entire property devolved upon them as the legal heirs of Sital Duari .Sital Duari transferred his entire share of the suit property on 14th June, 2001 by way of Registered deed of Sale in favour of Rampada the petitioner herein at a consideration of Rs.4,24.500/- but on account of deficit Stamp duty the registration was completed only on 4th September, 2003. Maniklal Samanta claimed as the pre-emptor, deposited the value of suit property in the schedule of pre-emption application a sum of Rs. 4, 66,950/- before the Learned Court and filed the application under section 8/9 of the W.B.L.R Act of 1955.

4. An application was filed by the pre-emptor/Opposite Party Maniklal Samanta and his mother, Kamala Samanta exerting their right of pre-emption being Misc. Case No. 20 of 2003. The present petitioner /purchaser being the preemptor contested the proceeding filed under Section 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act,1955 by filing written objection and denied the claim of the pre-emptor with specific objection against the claim of partial preemption and also that they are co-sharer with the preemptor. Judgement and order dated 19th October, 2023 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) Ghatal, Pashim Medinipur whereby the pre-emption suit was dismissed. The Learned Appellate court reversed such order.

5. This revisional application has been filed challenging the judgement and order passed by the Learned Appellate Court reversing the judgement of the Trial Court in the second round of litigation on 29th June, 2024.

Submission made by the petitioner

6. The first point of preferring this appeal assailed by the Learned Advocate Mrs. Usha Maity relates to maintainability of the pre-emption application itself on the ground that said Ram Saran Samanta was not the co-sharer with Sital Chandra Duari and accordingly his legal heirs also cannot be the co-sharer. It is contended by the Learned Advocate that the property was sold to Rampada Jana by Registered sale deed executed and Registered on 14th June ,2001 and 4th September 2003 respectively is not a co-sharer property and accordingly the application for pre-emption submitted by the pre-emptor is not maintainable.It is submitted that the common owner Krishna Chandra while gifted 1/3rd and 2/3rd share within a total area of 3.55 acres with specific demarcation and rent/khajna both Sital and Ram Saran became the absolute owners of their respective portions and not the co-sharer to each other. Both of their names was recorded in the Record of rights as separate Raiyat with separate Khatian Number and both of them are raiyat and not co-sharer. Therefore the prayer made by the applicants for preemption