- (1.) Challenging the legality and validity of the judgment dated 18.04.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Misc. Appeal No. 81 of 2006, the petitioner has come before this forum with a prayer to set aside the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court on the ground that the learned First Appellate Court failed to construe the provision of Section 8 of W.B.L.R. Act.
(2.) According to the petitioner, learned First Appellate Court, did not consider the evidence and documents in its proper perspectives and has come to an incorrect finding which requires interference from this Court. As against this, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party contended that the learned First Appellate Court reversed the order of the learned Trial Court showing a sound reason which does not require any interference. To come to a finding we should consider the factual aspect.
(3.) According to the petitioner of Misc. Case No. 33 of 2002, the contention of the petitioner is such that the Ka and Ka/1 schedule property is the part of Kha schedule property. The said Ka schedule property originally belonged to one Mahesh Chandra Mondal. On 04.05.1943 he had executed a registered deed of gift in favour of his two sons namely Sita Ram Das and Charan Das. Thereafter the said Sita Ram Das and Charan Das jointly dug a doba on plot no. 346. Thereafter Charan Das had gifted his share to the extent of 3/1 decimals of land along with other non-suited plots to his grandson on 30.01.1974. Subsequently, Sita Ram Das also gifted three decimals of land on 11.07.1989 and 31.12.1996 to the petitioner and one decimal of land was gifted to Bharat Chandra Das by Sita Ram Das. Petitioners further cases is such that the plot nos. 344 and 345 are adjoining land of the suit plot no. 346 and in those plots that they have residential units. But the opposite party No. 3 Netai Charan Das sold the said land in favour of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, without disclosing the same to the present petitioners. According to the petitioner, they are co- sharers in the suit plot and so they are entitled to their pre-emption on the ground of co-sharers as well as adjoining land owner.;