LAWS(CAL)-2016-1-55

NASIRUDDIN SK. AND ORS. Vs. MAHASIN ALI KHAN

Decided On January 07, 2016
Nasiruddin Sk. And Ors. Appellant
V/S
Mahasin Ali Khan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order impugned dated 27th July, 2012 passed by the District Judge, Jangipur, Murshidabad, in Misc. Appeal No. 14 of 2009 allowing the appeal there by reversing the order of the learned trial Court which has allowed the pre -emption application in favour of the both petitioners is under challenge in this revisional application. Petitioners filed a Misc. Case No. 52 of 1990 against the opposite parties in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court Jangipur under Sec. 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act praying for pre -emption. Petitioners purchased .18 acre of land of plot No. 136 of Mouza -Ratanpuron 10th May, 1979. The opposite parties purchased .0625 acre of land of plot No. 133 of Mouza -Ratanpur by a registered deed dated 6th January, 1986 which was registered on 3rd April, 1990. Petitioners are the adjoining land holders of plot No. 133. Petitioners are being two brothers claimed pre -emption on the ground of vicinity by depositing the consideration amount along with 10% of the amount as per the requirement under the relevant section.

(2.) Opposite parties contested the Misc. Case No. 52 of 1990 by filing a written objection contending that the opposite parties got no interest in plot No. 136 as the vendors of the deed dated 10th May, 1979 and had no title in the said plot. Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court allowed the misc. case under Sec. 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act after consideration of all evidence on record.

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Jangipur, dated 7th May, 2003, misc. appeal was preferred by the opposite parties on the ground that the learned Judge had held that the petitioners were not the owners of plot No. 136 and not the adjoining land holders of plot No. 133. It was also contended by the opposite party that the learned Judge should not have placed reliance on the documents which were not legally proved nor admissible in evidence.