SANTOSH SARDAR Vs. SURENDRANALH KARMAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decision of this appeal by the defendants from an appellate judgment and decree of affirmance turns principally on the determination of the question: are the subsequent transferees of part of an occupancy holding necessary parties to the proceedings for pre-emption under section 26f of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 8 of 1885, initiated by a cosharer of the holding against the cosharer who has sold, and his vendee, the first purchaser ?

(2.) THE plaintiff Surendra Nath karmakar, now respondent, and one satish Chandra Roy had a moiety share each in the occupancy holding. On may 13. 1955, Satish sold the whole of his half share to Jitendra Nath mukherji. On November 4, 1957, jitendra sold just that: what he had purchased from Satish: to Santosh sardar and Nidhiram Naskar, the two defendants, now the appellants before me. On February 21, 1958, the plaintiff respondent moved the Court for pre-emption under section 26f. In such proceedings, the vendor Satish was a party; so was the first vendee Jitendra; but the subsequent vendees, the two appellants, were not. This fosters the question the present judgment opens with.

(3.) TO resume noticing the facts, on April 26, 1958, the pre-emption proceedings culminated in an order in favour of the petitioning pre-emptor, the respondent before me. That was followed by his getting into possession on May 27, 1958, of the moiety of the occupancy holding so pre-empted. The appellants, it is said, threatened on or about July 30, 1958, to dispossess him. Hence the suit on September 9, 1958 - a suit out of which this appeal arises. During the carriage of the suit, dispossession was alleged. Recovery of possession was, therefore, the relief the plaintiff respondent prayed the court for.