HARI PRASAD BHATTACHARJEE Vs. CHITTARANJAN ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the matter was taken up, learned counsel appearing for the appellants stated that the appellants do not propose to take steps for service on un-served respondent Nos. 2-4. Therefore, their names be deleted from the array of the parties at the risk of the appellants. Ordered as prayed for. No orders are required on I.A. Nos. 4-5.

(2.) One Nagendra Bala Devi was a tenant of plot Nos. 481 and 482. On 3.8.1954, Nagendra Bala Devi executed a Will bequeathing plot No. 481 in favour of respondent No. 4 (Subrata Ma ITR a) . Similarly, plot No. 482 was bequeathed to other grandsons/respondent Nos. 2 & 3. On 25.2.1964, the appellants, herein, purchased plot No. 482 through a registered sale deed from respondent Nos. 2 & 3. On 30.4.1966 respondent No. 1 (Ch ITR anjan Roy) purchased plot No. 481 through a registered sale deed from respondent No. 4 (Subrata Ma ITR a) . The appellant, herein, on 15.7.1966, filled an application claiming right of pre-emption in respect of sale of plot No. 481. The said application was numbered as Misc. Case No. 59/1966. Similarly, respondent No. 1 also filed an application claiming right of pre-emption in respect of plot No. 482 and the said application was numbered as Misc. Case No. 80.1960. The trial Court rejected the application of the appellants whereas the application of respondent No. 1 was allowed. The appellants herein, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the High Court but the same was dismissed. It is against the said Judgment, the appellants are in appeals before us.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that respondent No. 1 was a stranger and not a co-sharer and therefore, he could not claim right of pre-emption in respect of transfer of land by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of the appellants. This argument has not substance. Admittedly, Nagendra Bala Devi was the tenant of the aforesaid two plots. She bequeathed the said plots in favour of her grandsons. The grandsons became the co-tenants/co-sharers. When respondent Nos. 2 and 3 transferred plot No. 482 in favour of appellant, respondent No. 4 had right to pre-empt the sale being a co-sharer. Respondent No. 1 having stepped into the shoes of respondent No. 4 acquired right to pre-empt the transfer of land made by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of appellants.