Ishan Chandra Das, J. - (1.) In the instant revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein is questioning the propriety of the order dated 14th May, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Hooghly, in Misc. Appeal No. 86 of 2013 where the learned court below while disposing of the above, dismissed the same and affirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court in Preemption Miscellaneous Case No. 74 of 2008 being No. 63 dated 13th November, 2013.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that R.S. Plot No. 380, corresponding to L.R. Plot No. 573, Holding No. 198/201, Ward No. 6, Mohalla-Kalitola, under Hooghly Chinsurah Municipality, J.L. No. 9, Mouza-Bally, under Chinsurah police station, District-Hooghly, originally belonged to one Fakir Chandra Roy, a Hindu male, who died intestate in the year 1976 leaving behind his widow Hemantabala Roy, three sons Kartick Chandra Roy, Radhesyam Roy and Kanailal Roy, and two daughters, namely, Renuka and Sankari. Later on Hemantabala, the widow of Fakir Chandra Roy, died in the year 1984 and her share devolved upon her three sons and two daughters. Accordingly, surviving heirs acquired â .. "¢th share jointly. After the demise of Kanailal Roy in the year 2005, his â .. "¢th share was inherited by his widow, four sons and one daughter in equal shares jointly. A coparcener of proforma/opposite party, Radheshyam Roy, transferred his â .. "¢th share in the L.R. Plot No. 573 in favour of the petitioner herein, who was a stranger purchaser and for such transfer the privacy of the heirs of Fakir Chandra Roy was in jeopardy which led them to purchase exercising their preferential right to acquire property in terms of section 22(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by way of preferring an application under Section 22(2) of the Act against the present petitioner and the same was decreed by the learned Trial Court in Preemption Misc. Case No. 74 of 2008. In the said miscellaneous case, learned Trial Court while dealing with the application allowed the same with the following observations : "The genealogy submitted by the petitioner in his plaint is not disputed. On perusal of the material evidences on record and exhibit-L being the C.S. record it appears that 100 sataks of bastu land in suit plot no. 380(L.R. 573) was recorded in the name of Fakir Chandra Ray and Gopi Krishna Ray in equal 8 annas share each, subsequently which was reduced to 84 sataks when R.S. Record was finally published. On perusal of L.R. record (exhibit-1 series), it appears that entire 84 sataks in the said R.S. Plot No. 380 (L.R. Plot No. 573) the case plot. The opposite party no. 1 himself admitted during his cross examination that he has purchased undivided ¼th share of Radhey Shyam Ray by dint of exhibit-3. It is also admitted position that the case property is classified as bastu land and is a non-agricultural land. It is well proved by the petitioner that he is the co-owner of the case property and nephew of said Radhey Shyam Ray. On the other hand, the opposite party no. 1 is a stranger to the case property. In the circumstances, there is no alternative than to hold that the petitioner has been able to prove the plaint case successfully and he is entitled to get a decree as prayed for."
(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order passed in PMC 74 of 2008, the miscellaneous appeal was preferred and while dismissing the said miscellaneous appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Hooghly, held and observed the following : "There is no denying the fact that the suit property is a dwelling unit of undivided Hindu family. The property has not been partitioned by metes and bounds as yet and it is an admitted fact of this case. From the evidence on record and genealogy it is clean and clear that the pre-emptor/respondent was the Class-I heir of Fakir Chandra Roy and as per section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act he is entitled to pre-empt the property already transferred. It is also not in dispute that the appellant/pre-emptee was a complete stranger to the family of Fakir Chandra Roy. The only moot point of this case revolves around the question as to whether or not the pre-emptor/respondent was entitled to purchase the case land after taking place of the transfer of a portion of the suit house. To resolve this riddle, the decision enunciated in 67 CWN 792 is a beacon light to me. As per the scintillating decision of the Hon'ble Court it can be held without any hesitation that the pre-emptor/respondent was absolutely entitled to pre-empt the transferred portion of the dwelling house on the strength of his being a Class-I heir as per schedule appended to the Hindu Succession Act. The cumulative effect of the provision of section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act and the decision of the Hon'ble Court mentioned above go to show that the learned Trial Court rightly disposed of the pre-emption case and the judgment of the learned Trial Court is well reasoned and there is nothing to interfere with it.";