SAMARENDRA JANA Vs. BASANTA KUMAR SHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule relates to an application for pre-emption under Section 8 of the W. B. Lands Reforms Act which was allowed by the learned Munsiff, 1st Court, at Contain in Case No. 57 of 1973 on the 21st of june, 1975 and later on affirmed on an appeal by the 3rd Court of the Additional District Judge, Midnapore on the 6th of April, 1976.

(2.) IT appears that one Kshirode chandra Shit, since deceased, who was the owner of the disputed plot no. 865 died after the date of vesting leaving him surviving his widow, one son and three daughters. The Opposite Party, basanta Kumar Shit, the original applicant before the learned Munsiff, purchased the share of the widow and son on 2. 11. 1967. But the present petitioner before this court purchased the share of the three daughters of the said Kshirode Chandra Shit since deceased on 5. 7. 1972 and 22. 7. 1972. No notice of transfer was served on the said Basanta Kumar Shit under section 5 (5) of W. B. Land Reforms Act. The opposite party then filed the application for pre-emption under section 8 of the W. B. Land Reforms Act which succeeded.

(3.) MR. Bhunia, the learned Advocate, appearing in support of the rule urged mainly four points before this court His first contention was that the opposite party was not a co-sharer of the property at all and as such was not entitled to pre-emption. The basis for his contention is that the opposite party made the purchase in 1967 and then mutated his name and has been paying rent separately. Therefore he could not be regarded as a co-sharer. He relied on section 50 of the W. B. Land Reforms Act particularly sub-sec. (a) and (b ). The said section relates to maintenance of the record of rights by incorporating changes on account, inter alia, of (a) mutation of names as a result of transfer or inheritance. . . . and (d) variation of revenue. Mr. Bhunia contended that since the name of the opposite party was mutated and since he paid rents separately his share was separate from that of others and he could not be called a co-sharer.