The court reaffirmed that a registered sale deed transfers ownership even if full consideration isn't paid, and pre-emption claims can be barred by limitations and estoppel principles.

JUDGMENT :

Chaitali Chatterjee Das, J.

1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated 16.4.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II , Howrah in Misc. Appeal No. 77 of 2015 reversing the judgement and order passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division, 5^th Court, Howrah in connection with LR. Misc. Case No. 32 of 2011. The fact leading to filing of this case is that the predecessor interest of the present petitioners Latika Rani Mondal was a co-sharer of the property where a portion of the property was transferred by the Opposite Party No.2/husband of Latika in favour of Opposite Party No.1 behind the knowledge of Latika the mother of the present petitioners, that is the original Pre-emptor. After hearing the learned advocates and considering the materials on record the judgement was passed by the Trial Court in favour of her which was reversed by the Learned Appellate Court but before filing any revisional application, the original Pre-emptor died on 28.3.2024, leaving and surviving the petitioners herein as her only legal heirs.

2. The Misc. Case under West Bengal land Reforms Act was filed against the opposite parties claiming to be the co-sharer of the suit property in respect of the deed of transfer dated 1 July 2011.The property originally belonged to one Anil Chandra Naskar and Sunil Chandra Naskar, and while they were in possession one of the co-sharer namely Anil Naskar transferred 6 ‰ satak of land (4cottah approx.) out of his 12 and ‰ satak to the Opposite Party No. 2 by a registered deed of sale on 21.6.1975.Said Anil Chandra Naskar subsequently transferred the rest of his share to the mother of the petitioners that is the original Pre-emptor by registered deed of sale dated 29.5.1981. Since thereafter, the mother of the petitioners and opposite party No.2 who are the parents of the present petitioners started residing there by raising structure and installed one factory shed in respect of their undivided property out of 50 Shatak as Co sharer .

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the opposite party No.2 took loan of Rs.1,20, 000 from Opposite Party. No. 1, as he was in dire need of money and kept the property mortgaged measuring 6 ‰ satak of land to the Opposite Party No. 1 though the deed of sale was executed in favour of Opposite Party No.1 on 1.7.20.11. It was the understanding between the parties that said 1 ‰ cottah of land will remain mortgaged to the O.P. No. 1 till the dues are cleared and this transaction was made beyond the knowledge of the original pre-emptor and both the parties though lived under the same roof, was not appraised.

4. Therefore a fraud has been practised upon the mother of the petitioners beyond her knowledge on 1.7.11 and subsequently on 10.8.11, when the opposite No.1 tried to take possession of the suit property and she came to know such fact of transfer and after getting the certified copy of the deed on 16.8.2011 the mother of the petitioners further came to know that in the recital part, nothing was mentioned about the mortgage. Furthermore no notice under Section 5(5) of W.B.L.R Act has been served upon the-pre-emptor, the mother of the petitioners. After that she filed the application under section 8 and 9 of West Bengal land Reforms Act 1955 on 3.11.2011.

5. The case of the Opposite Party on the other hand is that both the petitioner and the Opposite Party No 2, being husband and wife and married couple lead their conjugal life ha