JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– These two Rules arise out of an appellate order passed by the learned Munsif of Katwa in effect rejecting the two applications for pre-emption filed by the petitioner in these Rules. The petitioner's case is that one Jinnat Bibi transferred by was of sale au May 3, 1965, by two Kobalas her interest in the properties mentioned therein to the opposite party. In respect of the said properties the petitioner was a co-sharer with Jinnat Bibi and the alleged purchaser had never any interest in the holding, a portion or shares whereof was sold to him. The petitioner averred that he had no earlier knowledge of the sales and he came to know on April 24, 1968 of the said transactions after taking certified copies of the documents. Accordingly the petitioner filed two applications before the S. D.O., Katwa both on July 18, 1968 claiming preemption of the lands sold by two Kobalas both dated May 3, 1968, under section 8(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. In one of the applications giving rise to Case No. Mis. LR 24 of 1968, a sum of Rs. 900/- with 10% compensation in all Rs. 990/- was deposited as the consideration for pre-emption on the basis of the consideration for one of the alleged Kobalas while in the other application giving rise to Case No. Mis. LR 25 of 1965, a sum of Rs. 2,500/- with 10% compensation, in all Rs. 2,750/- was deposited for the same purpose on the basis of consideration for the other Kobala. 2. The said applications were opposed by the opposite party who filed written objections to the said applications, contending, inter alia, that he had been in possession of the properties in dispute as donees under two registered documents of heba-bil-ewaz and provisions of section 8(1) of the said Act were not applicable in cases of heba-bil-ewaz which are transfers by exchanges. It was further alleged that no actual consideration passed between the parties and in any event the applications are barred by limitation. 3. It was further alleged that no actual consideration passed between the parties and in any event the applications are barred by limitation. 3. The learned Sub-divisional Officer was of the opinion following the observations in Mulla's 'Principle of Mohammedan Law' that heba-bil-ewaz was in reality a sale and two requisite conditions of such transfer being actual payment of consideration by the donee and a bona fide intention on part of the donor to divert himself in praesenti. About the latter condition there was little doubt but about the passing of actual consideration the learned Officer was in doubt and accordingly he felt that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to prove actual payment of consideration by the donee. Accordingly by order dated, May 25, 1969, he fixed the cases for evidence on July 8, 1969. 4. Against the said order, two appeals were preferred by the pre-emptee opposite party before the learned Munsif, second Court, Katwa and they were heard analogously. The learned Munsif was of the opinion that the impugned deeds dated May 3, 1965 which are claimed to be heba-bil-ewaz are exchanges or gifts for consideration and a transfer by exchange is outside the ambit of section 8(1) as provided in section 8(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. It was held that the petitioner on a misconception deposited sums equivalent to the valuation of the properties in the deed with 10% compensation as required under section 8(1) of the Act as if such valuations were the considerations which passed from the donor to the donee which was in fact not so. As to limitation, it was observed that the applications were within time from the date of registration i.e., July 19, 1965. Accordingly the orders impugned in the appeals were set aside by the learned Munsif by his orders dated September 17, 1969 thereby in effect rejecting the said applications. The petitioner has obtained these rules against the said orders. 5. Mr. Alak Bhusan Sen Sarma, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has contended that as the heba-bil-ewaz was in effect a sale, the learned Munsif committed an error in not allowing the petitioner an opportunity to adduce evidence about the passing of consideration. This contention has been disputed by Mr. Md. 5. Mr. Alak Bhusan Sen Sarma, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has contended that as the heba-bil-ewaz was in effect a sale, the learned Munsif committed an error in not allowing the petitioner an opportunity to adduce evidence about the passing of consideration. This contention has been disputed by Mr. Md. Sadeq Hussain the learned Advocate for the opposite party who contended that the present applications are not maintainable in law as exchange, as in the instance cases, are expressly excluded by the said Act. 6. A heba-bil-ewaz in India as distinguished from a hiba or simple gift, is a gift for consideration and two requisite conditions are actual payment of consideration and a bona fide intention on part of the donor to divest himself in praesenti of the property and to confer it to the donee. If there is a heba-bil-ewaz for pecuniary consideration, it would be in reality a sale as, a sale, under the Transfer of Property Act, is a transfer for a price paid or promised or part-paid or part-promised. An exchange, on the other hand is a transfer of ownership one thing for the ownership of another neither thing or both things being money though adequacy of consideration is not material. It may be mentioned that in Section 26F of the Bengal Tenancy Act, heba-bil-ewaz for pecuniary consideration was not excluded from its operation. 7. In section 8(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 inter alia, a transfer by exchange has been excluded from proceedings for pre-emption. In the instant case, the impugned deeds recite certain articles of prayers are the consideration for transfer. The transactions on the face of it are accordingly exchanges and will be outside the operation section 8(1) of the Act. The petitioners in his applications under section 8(1) simply mentioned the impugned documents as Kobalas though on his own case, he filed the applications after being acquainted with all facts on obtaining the certified copies thereof. It was not the case in the applications that though no cash consideration was shown as having passed for the transfer of ownership of the properties in fact was cash consideration did pass to the donor from the donee. It was not the case in the applications that though no cash consideration was shown as having passed for the transfer of ownership of the properties in fact was cash consideration did pass to the donor from the donee. The deposits of the amounts as consideration money were based on misconception as every document of transfer by exchange or gift has to state the value of the property for purposes of stamp duty and registration and such valuation in gifts or exchange does not indicate the consideration of the transfers. In absence of such pleading, a party should not have been allowed by the Sub-divisional Officer to adduce evidence as to consideration on a case not made in the pleadings and the learned Munsif acted rightly and within his jurisdiction, in holding that section 8(2) was a bar to the maintainability of the applications. 8. A point was taken by the opposite party that the applications are barred by limitation. It is obvious that in absence of the notice of transfer, a pre-emptor would be entitled to the benefit of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Under section 57 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, an officer in dealing with proceedings under this act shall exercise the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure and his orders will have the force of decrees, and orders of Civil Courts. Accordingly, the provisions of the Limitation Act would be applicable to the proceedings under the Act. The time limit is three years from when the cause of action arises which in the instant case would arise on the completion of the registration. As was held in (1) Ram Saran Lall v. Must. Domini Kuer, AIR 1961 SC 1747 , the registration under the Registration Act is not complete till the document registered has been copied out in the registration office as provided in section 61. Here the registration of the impugned documents appear to have been completed on July 19, 1965 and the present applications were filed on July 18, 1968 well within time. The applications are not therefore time barred. However in the view taken above, the rules are discharged without any order as to costs.