Back
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS
Rampada Jana – Appellant
Versus
Maniklal Samanta – Respondent
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 afte
None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. There are no keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "abrogated" in the descriptions. Therefore, based solely on the information provided, no case law in this list can be definitively categorized as bad law.
Followed / Affirmed / Clarified:
Sabri Properties Pvt. Limited VS CTS Industries Limited - Calcutta (2014): The case discusses amendments to the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, and its scope. It appears to be a substantive legal clarification rather than a case that has been overruled or criticized.
Sk. Sajhan Ali VS Sk. Saber Ali - Calcutta (2015): The case upholds the maintainability of an application under Section 8 of the Land Reforms Act, indicating judicial support for the legal position at that time.
BARASAT EYE HOSPITAL VS KAUSTABH MONDAL - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1155: Clarifies procedural requirements for pre-emption (deposit of consideration amount) and states that Section 5 of Limitation Act does not apply to pre-emption cases, reinforcing existing legal principles.
RABI KUMAR DASS VS CHITTARANJAN DAS - 2006 0 Supreme(Cal) 374: States a legal principle that a suit for partition can only be filed by co-sharers, which is a settled legal position and likely followed.
Kumar Gonsusab VS Sri Mohammed Miyan Urf Baban - 2008 6 Supreme 122: Emphasizes that a suit for pre-emption cannot be based merely on an agreement to sell and notes the weak nature of pre-emption rights, aligning with established legal understanding.
Patel Motibhai Naranbhai VS Dinubhai Motibhaj Patel - 1996 1 Supreme 418: Clarifies that the Arbitration Act does not require an Arbitrator to apply to the Court for filing of the award, reinforcing procedural clarity.
Distinguished / Noted for Legal Clarification:
Gopal Sardar VS Karuna Sardar - 2004 5 Supreme 328: Discusses the application of Section 5 of Limitation Act in the context of applications under Section 8 of the Land Reforms Act. The language suggests it clarifies the legal position rather than being overruled.
Kalipada Ghosh VS Paresh Nath Mal - 1980 0 Supreme(Cal) 195: Defines the scope of adjoining owner’s right to pre-empt, which appears to be a clarification of legal boundaries rather than a case that has been overruled.
Sk. Sajhan Ali VS Sk. Saber Ali - Calcutta (2015): Addresses the limitation period for transfer under Section 8, indicating a nuanced interpretation rather than a case that has been reversed or criticized.
Uncertain Cases:
None of the cases exhibit explicit signs of being overruled or criticized based solely on the descriptions provided. The treatment patterns appear to be either clarificatory or affirmatory, with no indication of negative judicial treatment.
None. The descriptions do not provide evidence of overruled or reversed treatment, and all cases seem to be presented as clarifications, affirmations, or statements of legal principles.
(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.....
The right of pre-emption under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act requires proof of co-sharership, and a well-demarcated transfer does not create co-sharers among purchasers.
The courts affirmed that oral partition lacks recognition under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, maintaining pre-emptors as co-sharers, thus preserving their right of pre-emption.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the deposit requirement under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 for pre-emption applications. Non-complia....
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 earlie....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
