Ordered as prayed for.
The appellant, herein, on 15.7.1966, filled an application claiming right of pre emption in respect of sale of plot No.
Similarly, plot No.
80.1960.
1 Chitranjan Roy purchased plot No.
Similarly, respondent No.
The said application was numbered as Misc.
481 in favour of respondent No.
When respondent Nos.
1 having stepped into the shoes of respondent No.
Admittedly, Nagendra Bala Devi was the tenant of the aforesaid two plots.
481 and 482.
481 through a registered sale deed from respondent No.
On 30.4.1966 respondent No.
482 through a registered sale deed from respondent Nos.
2 and 3 transferred plot No.
No orders are required on I.A. Nos.
482 was bequeathed to other grandsons respondent Nos.
It is against the said Judgment, the appellants are in appeals before us.
1 also filed an application claiming right of pre emption in respect of plot No.
On 25.2.1964, the appellants, herein, purchased plot No.
59/1966.
4 Subrata Maitra .
She bequeathed the said plots in favour of her grandsons.
4 Subrata Maitra .
One Nagendra Bala Devi was a tenant of plot Nos.
482 and the said application was numbered as Misc.
This argument has number substance.
The appellants herein, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the High Court but the same was dismissed.
The grandsons became the companytenants companysharers.
Case No.
On 3.8.1954, Nagendra Bala Devi executed a Will bequeathing plot No.
N. Variava, J. When the matter was taken up, learned companynsel appearing for the appellants stated that the appellants do number propose to take steps for service on un served respondent Nos.
Therefore, their names be deleted from the array of the parties at the risk of the appellants.
