SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA,J. - (1.) The petitioner and the opposite party no. 1 are represented through their learned counsel.
(2.) Service upon the opposite party no. 2 is dispensed with. The present challenge has been preferred against an order, whereby the appellate court reversed an order of preemption passed by the trial court on the sole ground that the appellant, Rekha, who is the present opposite party no. 1 (preemptee) was a co-sharer upon the death of the original opposite party no. 2, Dulal, who was her father, and as such, no preemption lay under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that Dulal died on February 6, 2008. Even if it is taken that Rekha, the preemptee, became a co-sharer in respect of the property-in-question on that date, the transaction sought to be preempted occurred on January 2, 2003, at which point of time Rekha was not yet a co-sharer, since her father was still alive.;