RANGALAL MONDAL Vs. SUDARSAN BURMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order dated 15.2.84 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Howrah in Miscellaneous Appeal nos. 226 and 227 of 1981 is under challenge in these two revisional applications heard analogously. In order to appreciate the basis of the challenge aforesaid it would be appropriate to refer to certain facts as under.

(2.) Plot no. 837 measuring 32 decimals appertaining to khatian no. 1834 of mouza Dhulagori in the district of Howrah originally belonged to two brothers Panchulal Naskar and Durlav alias Dulal Chandra Naskar each having undivided 8 annas share therein. Panchulal Naskar died first leaving behind him three sons and a widow and the pre-emptor-petitioner Sudarshan Burman purchased the entire share held by Panchu in the holding from his legal heirs by a registered sale deed dated 7.5.64 (Exbt. 4 (a). Dulal died in or about 1972 and was survived by his widow Panchubala, two sons Nemai and Adhir and three daughters Angur, Bedana and Umatara. By a registered sale deed dated 4.5.74 (vide Exbt. 4) the petitioner purchased the share of Adhir measuring 02.2/3 decimals of land in the disputed holding and the other heirs of Dulal transferred their interest in the same holding to the opposite party, Rangalal Mondal by two registered sale-deeds dated 6.5.74 & 28.5.74 respectively (vide Exbt. 1 and 1(a)). On 11.10.74 the petitioner filed two applications under section 8(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the 5th Court of Munsif at Howrah exercising his right of pre-emption in respect of the portions of the disputed holding transferred to the opposite party and these two applications were registered respectively as L.R. Case nos. 7 and 8 of 1974. Both the applications were contested by the opposite party Rangalal by filing written objections.

(3.) The learned Munsif heard the two L. R. cases analogously and by a single judgement dated 18.9.81 dismissed the applications holding inter alia that since the Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 came into force, the tenancies of Panchulal and Dulal stood separated, that the applications were barred by limitation because the pre-emptor had constructive notice of the transfers K and that the disputed holding was a raiyati one held for agricultural purpose. Eventually, both the applications were dismissed on contest. This is how the learned Munsif disposed of the L.R. cases referred to above.