TARUN SARKAR Vs. PRAVAKAR ROY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein is questioning the propriety of the order dated 14th May, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Hooghly, in Misc. Appeal No. 86 of 2013 where the learned court below while disposing of the above, dismissed the same and affirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court in Preemption Miscellaneous Case No. 74 of 2008 being No. 63 dated 13th November, 2013.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that R.S. Plot No. 380, corresponding to L.R. Plot No. 573, Holding No. 198/201, Ward No. 6, Mohalla-Kalitola, under Hooghly Chinsurah Municipality, J.L. No. 9, Mouza-Bally, under Chinsurah police station, District-Hooghly, originally belonged to one Fakir Chandra Roy, a Hindu male, who died intestate in the year 1976 leaving behind his widow Hemantabala Roy, three sons Kartick Chandra Roy, Radhesyam Roy and Kanailal Roy, and two daughters, namely, Renuka and Sankari. Later on Hemantabala, the widow of Fakir Chandra Roy, died in the year 1984 and her share devolved upon her three sons and two daughters. Accordingly, surviving heirs acquired â .. "¢th share jointly. After the demise of Kanailal Roy in the year 2005, his â .. "¢th share was inherited by his widow, four sons and one daughter in equal shares jointly. A coparcener of proforma/opposite party, Radheshyam Roy, transferred his â .. "¢th share in the L.R. Plot No. 573 in favour of the petitioner herein, who was a stranger purchaser and for such transfer the privacy of the heirs of Fakir Chandra Roy was in jeopardy which led them to purchase exercising their preferential right to acquire property in terms of section 22(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by way of preferring an application under Section 22(2) of the Act against the present petitioner and the same was decreed by the learned Trial Court in Preemption Misc. Case No. 74 of 2008. In the said miscellaneous case, learned Trial Court while dealing with the application allowed the same with the following observations :

(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order passed in PMC 74 of 2008, the miscellaneous appeal was preferred and while dismissing the said miscellaneous appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Hooghly, held and observed the following :