RAMAPADA JANA Vs. KAMALA SAMANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of pre-emptee in a proceeding under Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955(hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act' in short) and is directed against the order dated January 20, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Paschim Medinipore, in Misc. Appeal No. 29 of 2005 thereby affirming the judgment and order dated February 28, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ghatal in Misc. Case No. 20 of 2003.

(2.) The facts necessary to decide the issue involved in the present revisional application as recorded by both the learned Courts below on consideration of the pleadings of the suit is that one Ganash Chandra Maity was the admitted owner of the suit property who died before the promulgation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as such on his death his only son Krishna Chandra Maity inherited the suit property in exclusion of the daughters of the said Krishna Chandra Maity. The said Krishna Chandra Maity had no issue and he by two separate deeds of gift dated January 13, 1959 gifted 1/3rd of his landed properties to the son of one of his sisters namely Sital Doari and 2/3rd of his landed properties to the son of his another sister namely Ramswaran Samanta. The said Sital Doari by virtue of the said deed of gift got the suit property.

(3.) The said Sital Doari by the impugned deed of transfer dated June 14, 2001 transferred the suit property in favour of the petitioner. The widow and the daughter of the said Ramswaran Samanta sought to pre-empt the said sale by filing an application under Sections 8 and 9 of the said Act on the ground that the said Sital Doari being a co-sharer of the petitioners in respect of the suit property cannot transfer the same to the petitioner who is a stranger to the suit property without giving notice as required under Section 5(5) of the said Act. The said application was registered before the learned Trial Judge, as Misc. Case No. 20 of 2003.