BIMAL SADHAN KOLEY Vs. NIKHILESH KOLEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question in this Rule for our consideration is that when a transfer is made in respect of number of plots by one of the co-sharers of his undivided share, section 8 of the West Bengal land Reforms Act will apply and moreover what is the amount the pre-emptor will have to deposit if he wants only to pre-empt one of the several plots sought to be sold. Both the courts held against the petitioner. Hence the revision application at the instance of the applicant for pre-emption.

(2.) MR. Bagchi, on behalf of the plaintiff contended that he wants to pre-empt only one portion of the plot which is an agricultural land and he has deposited the sum which will be the market value of the said plot. It is argued by Mr. Bagchi that the price of one holding which has been deposited is quite sufficient and the petitioner may not be directed to deposit the consideration money for the one transaction because a number of plots were considered and only one plot was sought to be pre-empted.

(3.) MR. Mukherjee on behalf of the opposite parties, however, contended that the petitioner purchased l/3rd undivided share of C. S. Plot No. 1070 along with other plots, therefore, they must not be co-sharers. In view of the full Bench judgment reported in 76 c. W. N. 1058 (Madan M. Ghosh vs. Sishu Bala Atta) they are co-owners of the premises. It is argued that by the full Bench judgment what has been stated is that though there was no partition by metes and bounds between the co-sharers after coming into force of the west Bengal Estates Acquisition Act the co-sharership ceased to exist and all the tenants under the intermediary become direct tenant under the Stats, whether or not there was a partition by metes and bounds. It is argued by Mr. Mukherjee that a co-owner cannot be a boundary man because he has, according to him, right to every bit of the land to which he is a co-owner. Therefore, it is argued by Mr. Mukherjee that he is not a boundary man.