The question.
in the negative and it is the companyrectness of this companyclusion that is assailed in these proceedings.
The matter came up for hearing before the two learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court who referred the matter to the Full Bench.
She excavated a portion of the land, filled up other portions of it, companystructed a small structure thereon and started living there from 1964.
The respondent moved the High Court in revision.
was answered by the Full Bench in the negative with the result that the application for preemption stood dis missed.
To provide a factual background it may be sufficient to set out the brief facts in C.A. No.
as already stated.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.
1972 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No.
626 of 1975 etc.
Siborani purchased plot Nos.
1963, the suit property being land measuring about 15 acres.
Hence the appeal before us.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Gangamoni Mondal, purchased, on 29.
application was allowed by the learned Munsif and his order was companyfirmed by the learned Additional District Judge.
The respondent Shravani Ghosh is a stranger who purchased the disputed property from Jadhunath, Siddeswar and Maniklal by a deed dated 4.5.71.
The second petitioner purchased plot number 2169 in the khatian on 19.5.69 from the holders.
Subsequently, a deed dated 21.6.71 was executed in her favour by Maniklal and Ashutosh purportedly to rectify a defect in the earlier deed.
The respondent, Smt.
The pre emption.
Ranjan Mukherjee.
Sukumar Ghosh.
D.P. Mukherjee and G.S. Chatterjee.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN, J. All these cases involve a companymon point which has been decided by a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court reported as Madan Mohan Ghosh v. Shishu Bala Atta, AIR 1972 Cal.
Thereupon, the purchasers under the earlier deeds, Siborani and another claimed a right of pre emption under S. 8 of the 1955 Act.
1947, 2199 and 363 in this khatian by a registered deed dated 28/5/68 from the holders.
About three years and five months after her purchase, Ardhendu Bhusan Halder, the predecessor in inter est of the appellants, made an application for pre emption under section 26 F of the Tenancy Act.
the right of pre emption available to the companysharer had ceased with the companying into force of the 1953 Act.
2029 of 1967.
Later, Madhusudhan died and his interest devolved on his father Ashutosh and his brother Mukti.
Civil Appeal No.
Somnath Mukherjee.
626/75 is a direct appeal from the judgment of the Full Bench in one of the batch of cases dealt with therein.
The case of the re spon dent was that.
K. Mukherjee.
D.N. Mukherjee, N.R. Choudhary.
though the predecessor in interest of the appellant and her vendor were the joint holders of the property in question.
626/75.
The holding was previously a Raiyati Mokarari interest and it had vested in the State under the provisions of the 1953 Act.
for the Appellants.
His case was that he was a Co sharer Of the holding which companyprised the land purchased by the respondent.
The application was allowed by the Munsif and the District Judge but disallowed, on revision, by the High Court.
In the other cases, the High Court has decided the matter by following the Full Bench decision and that is the subject matter of appeal before this Court.
for the Respondents.
This question has been answered by the Full Bench Coram A.K. Mukherjea, Sabyasachi Mukharji and M.M. Dutt, JJ.
