BULUYARA BIBI @ BULU BIBI vs SONARUL SK.
- Court
- Calcutta High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Before:
The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
C.O. 3874 of 2025
Buluyra Bibi @ Bulu Bibi
VS.
Sonarul Sk.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Omar Faruk Gazi,
Md. Muslehuddin,
Mr. Pratikur Rahaman,
Ms. Saoni Panda
….Advocates
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Bratindra Narayan Ray
…. Advocate
Reserved on : 21.08.2026
Judgment on : 08.09.2026
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-
1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the
instance of the pre-emptee and is directed against a judgment and/or order
dated 06.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First
Track Court, Second Court, Lalbagh District Murshidabad in Misc. Appeal
no. 26 of 2022 affirming the judgment and order dated 25.04.2017 passed
by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division Lalbagh, Murshidabad in Misc.
(Pre-emption) case no. 86 of 2007.
Page 1 of 6
2. The opposite party herein filed an application under Section 8 of the West
Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 against the petitioner herein which was
registered as Misc. (pre-emption) Case No. 86 of 2007. The learned Civil
Judge, Junior Division Lalbagh, District Murshidabad, by a judgment and
order dated 25.04.2017, allowed the application under Section 8 and 9 of
the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 on contest. The petitioner
challenged the said judgment and order by preferring Misc. Appeal No. 26 of
2022 and the learned Additional District Judge, First Track Court, Second
Court at Lalbagh, by a judgment and order dated 06.02.2025, dismissed the
said Misc. Appeal thereby affirming the judgment and order passed by the
learned Trial Judge.
3. The case made out by the opposite party herein in the Misc. Case under
Section 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 in a nut shell is
as follows.
4. The property comprising in Jikra Mouza within Ranitala P.S. comprising plot
no. 76 originally belong to one Md. Khairul Islam and Arejan Khanam who
transferred 3 decimals of land out of their property by dint of deed dated
10.01.1983 in favour of one Abdul Sk. i.e., father of the pre-emptor/opposite
party herein. Thus, by virtue of the said purchase Abdul Sk. became the co-
sharer of the plot. Upon the death of the said Abdul Sk, his purchased
property was inherited by the pre-emptor/opposite party and the other
brother and sister of the pre-emptor. Arejan Khanam i.e., co-sharer of the
1/10
said plot without informing the pre-emptor, transferred 3 decimals of
land in plot no. 76 in favour of the pre-emptee/petitioner herein by a
registered deed of sale dated 24.04.2007. Since the petitioner herein is a
stranger purchaser, the opposite party herein filed the application for pre-
emption.
5. The petitioner herein contested the pre-emption application by filing a
written objection denying the material allegations contend therein. It was
specifically stated in the said written objection that the opposite party and
the husband of the petitioner are brothers and, therefore, the petitioner is
Page 2 of 6
not a stranger to the suit plot. The petitioner has purchased a demarcated
area of the suit plot and the opposite party was all along aware of the said
sale. The pre-emption application is barred by limitation.
6. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the pre-
emption application is barred by the laws of limitation. He further submitted
that since the vendor of the petitioner transferred his entire share in the suit
plot the pre-emption application is not maintainable. He further contended
that the learned Judge of the Appellate Court without considering the
materials on record mechanically affirmed the judgment and order passed
by the learned Trial Judge. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
further submitted that an effective opportunity was not afforded to the
petitioner to contest the pre-emption case.
7. Mr. Ray learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submitted that
the learned Trial Judge as well as the learned Judge of the Appellate Court
after considering the materials on record allowed the pre-emption
application. He submitted that the concurrent findings of fact should not be
interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in support
of such contention he placed reliance upon a decision of the co-ordinate
bench in the case of Tapashi Mondal vs. Binoy Kumar Biswas reported at
(2015) 1 CHN (Cal) 267 .
8. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials
placed.
9. After going through the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial
Judge this Court finds that a specific issue was framed whether the Misc.
Case was barred by laws of limitations. The learned Trial Judge after
considering the impugned deed of transfer being no. 4534 of 2007 being
Exhibit 5 recorded a factual finding that the registration of the deed has
been completed on 29.06.2015 i.e., during the pendency of the said suit.
The learned Trial Judge correctly applied the proposition of law that if the
registration of the impugned deed of transfer is completed during the
Page 3 of 6
pendency of the suit, the instant suit is to be held to be filed within the
period of limitation.
10. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would contend that the
instant Misc. Case was bad for non-joinder of the vendor/transferor of the
impugned deed as a party in the pre-emption proceeding.
11. It is well settled that the vendor/transferor of the impugned deed of transfer
is not a necessary party in a proceeding under Section 8 and 9 of the West
Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The learned Trial Judge rightly held that it
is not necessary to add the transferor of the impugned deed as a party in the
misc. case.
12. The learned Trial Judge rightly noted that the pre-emptor became a co-
sharer in respect of the suit plot by virtue of inheritance from his father who
became a co-sharer by virtue of purchase of a portion of the suit plot in the
year 1983.
13. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would contend that the
vendor of the petitioner herein trasferred his entire share in the suit plot
and thus the pre-emption case is not maintainable. The learned Trial Judge
noted that the measurement of the suit property is 40 decimals and out the
40 decimals only 3 decimals was transferred in favour of Abdul Sk. and
3/10
3 decimals of land has been transferred in favour of the petitioner
herein. The learned Trial Judge after considering the materials on record
arriving at a factual finding that only a portion of a suit plot has been
transferred by the impugned deed. Though the petitioner herein in the
written objection to the Misc. Case has contended that the suit plot has
been duly partitioned amongst its co-sharer but the petitioner failed to prove
such fact. The learned Trial Judge was right in holding that the suit plot is
an unpartitioned one.
14. The learned Trial Judge held that the applicant in the Misc. Case proved
that he is a co-sharer of the suit plot and only a portion of the plot has been
transferred. In the light of the aforesaid factual finding the learned Trial
Page 4 of 6
Judge allowed the Misc. Case under Section 8 and 9 of the West Bengal
Land Reforms Act. By the said order the right, title and interest of the
opposite party in the Misc. Case/petitioner herein by virtue of the registered
deed of sale bearing no. 4534 of the year 2007 vested in favour of the
petitioner in the Misc. Case/opposite party herein. The learned Trial Judge
held that the opposite party in the Misc. Case i.e., the petitioner herein did
not adduce any evidence and also did not take part in the argument.
15. The learned Judge of the appellate court recorded that the opposite party in
the Misc. Case i.e., the petitioner herein thoroughly cross examined the
plaintiff’s witness but did not adduce any evidence and did not participate in
the argument. The learned Judge of the appellate Court held that the
petitioner of the Misc. Case inherited the share of his father and became the
co-sharer of the suit plot and it has not been established that the suit plot
has been partitioned. The learned Judge of the appellate Court affirmed the
finding of the learned Trial Judge.
Tapashi Mondal
16. The co-ordinate bench in (supra) held that when the
learned judges of the Trial Court and the appellate Court have arrived at a
concurrent finding of fact, the scope of judicial review under Article 227 is
restricted.
17. After going through the materials on record, it does not appear to this Court
that the impugned orders have been passed either in grave dereliction of
duty or in-flagrant abuse of the fundamental principles of law or in
perversity.
18. It is now well settled that in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India the High Court is not entitled to re-appreciate the
evidence and substitute its conclusions for the conclusions reached by the
learned Trial Judge as well as the appellate Court.
19. The case on hand do not fall within a rare and exceptional situation
warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the
learned Trial Judge and the learned Judge of the appellate Court.
Page 5 of 6
20. For all the reasons as aforesaid this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the impugned judgment and order.
21. C.O. 3874 of 2025 accordingly stands dismissed. There shall be, however,
no order as to costs.
22. Urgent photostat certified copies, if applied for, be supplied to the parties
upon compliance of all formalities.
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
Page 6 of 6