RATAN CHANDRA SARKAR Vs. KUSHKANTA SARKAR & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisional application being C.O. 903 of 2005 under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the order dated 18.12.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Dinhata in Miscellaneous Appeal (P) No.8 of 2003 confirming the order of pre-emption dated 15.7.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dinhata in Misc. (Pre-emption) Case No.14 of 1995.

(2.) Heard learned advocate, Mr. Sukanta Roy and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya assisted by Mr. Raju Bhattacharya.

(3.) Mr. Roy representing the petitioner/appellant/pre-emptee opposite of the mis pre-emption case assailed of the judgement of the appellate court on the grounds that learned appellate court failed to consider that the pre-emption case ought to have been failed for unidenticality of the case plot since in the deed no. 10590 dated 20th July, 1977 on the basis of which the opposite party/respondent/pre-emptor/petitioner of the pre-emption case claimed pre-emption in respect of the property mentioned in the schedule of the application as co-sharer and adjoining land order does not bear the number of the impugned case plot no.1203 of khatian no.31, and the number of the plot is not matching with the R.S. Khatian no. 95/1 submitted by the opposite party wherefrom also there is unidenticality in the name of the opposite party, where it was recorded as Kush Chandra Ghosh whereas the name of the opposite party is Kush Kanta Sarkar. Further submitted that Parul Bala Barman by purchase from whom the opposite party claimed to have become co-sharer had no saleable right at that relevant time. Further argued that since learned Appellate Court declined to affirm the order of pre-emption on the ground of vicinage but accepted the order of the learned Trial Judge allowing pre-emption on the ground of co-sharership, the object of pre-emption would be frustrated. Mr. Roy with a view to strengthen his submissions relied on the following decisions:-