JUDGMENT : Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J. The order dated 28th September, 2012 passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Paschim Medinipur in Misc Appeal No. 35 of 2011 allowing the permission in favour of the pre-emptor/petitioner reversal of the order dated 28th January, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division 1st Court, Paschim Medinipur in Misc. Case No.32 of 2009 is under challenge in this revisional application. 2. Facts revealed in this case is that one Gourhari Adak was the owner of 19 decimals of land in plot no. 566 under Mouza – Khelna under P.S. Sabong, Paschim Medinipur out of total 19 decimals of land Gourhari sold 9 decimals to the opposite party/pre-emptor by a registered sale-deed dated 14th June, 1994 and delivered possession in favour of the opposite party/pre-emptor. Thereafter, said Gourhari while exercising his right, title and interest and possession over the rest 10 decimals of land, transferred 9 decimals to the petitioner/pre-emptee by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 5th June, 2009. The registration was completed on the same day. After the said 9 decimals was transferred, the opposite party/pre-emptor filed one application for preemption of 9 decimals of land in question which was transferred to the petitioner/pre-emptee. The petitioner/pre-emptee contested the preemption case by filing his objection against the petition filed by the opposite party/pre-emptor. Paragraph 13 of the written objection filed by the petitioner/pre-emptee is quoted hereunder: “That the opposite party humbly submit that by virtue of Regd. Deed of sale being No. 2630 dated 5.6.2009 in favour of the opposite parties no part of land has been transferred, rather by the impugned deed of transfer owner of the land transferred his entire land of the plot in question to the O.Ps. and the petitioner has no land adjoining to the case plot. The petitioner is neither a co-sharer nor holding land adjacent to the case plot and thereby the claim of pre-emption is not maintainable at all in the present form and prayer and the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.” 3. In the written objection the petitioner/pre-emptee claimed entire portion of the land, since transferred in his favour and the petitioner having no adjoining land to the suit plot and the petitioner being neither a co-sharer nor holding of the adjacent land of the suit plot, the case of preemption is not maintainable. 4. In the written objection the petitioner/pre-emptee claimed entire portion of the land, since transferred in his favour and the petitioner having no adjoining land to the suit plot and the petitioner being neither a co-sharer nor holding of the adjacent land of the suit plot, the case of preemption is not maintainable. 4. Considering the case made out by the respective parties, the learned Trial Court formulated seven issues, which are as follows: “1. Whether the present case is maintainable in its form and law ? 2. Is the case barred by law of limitation? 3. Whether a portion or share of a plot of land of raiyat has been transferred in favour of the O.Ps. 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the right to pre-emption of the case land without depositing full consideration money of the impugned deed dated 05.06.2009; 5. Whether the petitioner is the owner holding adjoining land to the case land of Raiyat transferred as alleged; 6. Whether the right of pre-emption of petitioner, if any, exist; 7. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any relief of pre-emption as prayed for.” 5. Issue nos. 1, 2 and 3 were decided in favour of the petitioner/pre-emptee with a finding that a portion or share of a plot of land of raiyat has been transferred in favour of the petitioner/pre-emptee. So far the point nos. 4 to 7 are concerned the learned Trial Court held that the opposite party/pre-emptor could not satisfy the Court that he had become co-sharer by purchase. The learned Court below also came to conclusion that the property sold in favour of the opposite party/pre-emptor in the year 1994 for which possession was delivered was bounded by specific boundary and thus separated. Therefore, the opposite party could not become a co-sharer. It was also held that the opposite party/pre-emptor had no land adjacent to the suit-plot no. 566, out of which 9 decimals were transferred in favour of the opposite party/pre-emptor in the year 1994 and out of remaining 10 decimals, 9 decimals were transferred in the year 2009 to the petitioner/pre-emptee. Accordingly, issue nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 were decided against the opposite party/pre-emptor and the application for preemption filed by the opposite party/pre-emptor was dismissed. 6. Against the impugned order of the learned Trial Court an appeal was preferred. Accordingly, issue nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 were decided against the opposite party/pre-emptor and the application for preemption filed by the opposite party/pre-emptor was dismissed. 6. Against the impugned order of the learned Trial Court an appeal was preferred. The learned Appellate Court considered the case made out and heard the learned Counsel for both sides and considered materials available on record and came to a conclusion that the opposite party/pre-emptor is a co-sharer of the suit plot being no.566 and the deposit made by the petitioner i.e. proportionate land value of 9 decimals along with 10% interest in total Rs.32,740/- is the correct value deposited holding that by the same sale-deed two plots were purchased by the opposite party/pre-emptor for a total area of 15 decimals out of which preemption for 9 decimals in plot number 566 was claimed. Learned Appellate Court considered that both plots were situated in the same area and land value of those plots per decimal would be same. Therefore, the calculation made by the opposite party/pre-emptor was a right calculation. Therefore, there is no illegality in such assessment. 7. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/pre-emptee submitted that the Appellate Court tried to make out a third case which was not the case of the opposite party/pre-emptor. He submitted that the opposite party/pre-emptor claimed preemption on the ground of adjoining ownership, whereas the learned Court below decided the case in his favour on co-sharership. According to him, learned Court below misdirected itself and could not be allowed to decide on the alleged ground of co-sharership, which was not a ground for claiming preemption. 8. Mr. Gupta then argued that Appellate Court tried to correct the fault in evidence, which was not permissible. He submitted that the opposite party/pre-emptor admitted in his evidence that he had no adjoining land to plot no.566. However, the learned Appellate Court had corrected the fault by recording that a rustic villager under the fire of cross-examination stated the entire untrue account before the learned Court below and according to Mr. Gupta, learned Court below had crossed its limit taking the view that the evidence was by a rustic villager under the fire of cross-examination, which could not be a true account before the learned Court below. Gupta, learned Court below had crossed its limit taking the view that the evidence was by a rustic villager under the fire of cross-examination, which could not be a true account before the learned Court below. He submitted that the Appellate Court ought to have assessed the value of entire evidence on record but it did not do so. The learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate evidence and thereby committed a serious mistake, which had resulted a wrong decision against the petitioner/pre-emptee. He further submitted that although it was stated in the evidence by the opposite party/pre-emptor that the land purchased by him was bounded by a boundary and separated but there was no partition in terms of Section 14 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and the learned Court below could not take the opposite party/pre-emptor as adjoining owner of the property also. He submitted, in the facts and circumstances of this case and also taking note of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court was absolutely right in its decision that the opposite party/pre-emptor is neither a co-owner nor an adjoining owner. He cited some judgments in support of his submissions. 9. In the case of Soumen Pramanik & Anr. v. Subhendu Pramanik & Ors. reported in 2013(3) CLJ (Cal) 596 the learned Court dealt with question whether a portion of a share of a plot of a raiyat has been transferred to the pre-emptees or not is the real issue. Since there is no clear finding where pre-emptees are adjacent land owners of the land, the order passed by the Courts below were set aside and direction was given to hear out the matter afresh. The other judgment cited by Mr. Gupta is reported in 2013 (2) CHN (Cal) 453 [Susanta Jadav v. Rupchand Dhar], the relevant paragraph is 17. In that case this Court was of prima facie view that in absence of any evidence of reliable character being produced by the petitioner to disprove the consideration amount mentioned in the impugned transfer deed, the learned Civil Judge appears to have taken a correct view. In that case this Court was of prima facie view that in absence of any evidence of reliable character being produced by the petitioner to disprove the consideration amount mentioned in the impugned transfer deed, the learned Civil Judge appears to have taken a correct view. However, considering the fact that reliance has been placed by the petitioner on a value assessment report, the learned Civil Judge is directed to reconsider this aspect of the matter with regard to the proof of actual consideration paid along with any other sums as contemplated under Section 9 after giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce further evidence and dispose of the matter with a period of five months from the date of the communication of the order. 10. Learned Counsel also cited a case reported in 1985 CWN 782 [Bimal Sadhan Koley v. Nikhilesh Koley & Ors.] in support of his contention that the pre-emptor not having deposited the entire consideration money but only deposited the money for certain portion of a land which according to him is the market value of the plot, his application could not succeed in view of Section 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Learned Counsel tried to submit that in the instant case two plots one measuring 9 decimals and other measuring 6 decimals were transferred by a single deed, therefore, the deposit made by the opposite party/pre-emptor for 9 decimals of land is not proper and according to him, the entire deed value was to be deposited along with 10% interest. 11. The learned Counsel then cited two other Hon’ble Apex Court’s decisions, one is reported in (2008) SCC page 46 [Hardeo Rai v. Sakuntala Devi & Ors.] and other one reported in (2009) 15 SCC 747 [Jai Singh & Ors. v. Gurmej Singh]. Referring to those decisions he submitted that sale of undefined share in joint family property by a coparcener, although permissible and even a coparcenary interest can be transferred subject to the condition that the purchaser without the consent of other coparceners cannot get possession what he has purchased. 12. Mr. Gupta submitted that for the purpose of assigning one’s interest in the property, it was not necessary that partition by metes and bounds amongst the coparceners must take place. Once the share of a coparcener is determined, it ceased to be a coparcenary property. 12. Mr. Gupta submitted that for the purpose of assigning one’s interest in the property, it was not necessary that partition by metes and bounds amongst the coparceners must take place. Once the share of a coparcener is determined, it ceased to be a coparcenary property. The parties in such an event would not possess the property as “joint tenants” but as “tenants-in-common”. 13. He submitted that the decision of the learned Appellate Court is erroneous in law and not at all sustainable. He submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court should be set aside. 14. On the contrary, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party/pre-emptor, submitted that after considering the pleadings submitted by both the parties, the issues were framed. He submitted that issue nos. 6 and 7, in fact, cover everything. According to him, issue no.6 whether the right of preemption of the petitioner, if any, exist. He submitted that right of preemption would accrue on any one of the two grounds and the first one, if it is found that the opposite party/pre-emptor is an adjoining owner and the other if he is co-sharer of the plot of land. In the pleadings it is stated by the petitioner/pre-emptee that the opposite party/pre-emptor had no adjoining land to the suit plot and he is also not a co-sharer of the plot of land. It was also contended by him that since the entire plot of land was transferred to the petitioner/pre-emptee, the petition filed by the opposite party/pre-emptor under Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act is not maintainable. 15. Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that the learned Appellate Court had carefully considered the matter also discussed and analysed the evidence on record. He submitted out of total 19 decimals of land in plot no.566, 9 decimals were transferred in 1994 to the opposite party/pre-emptor and 10 decimals remained with original owner Gourhari Adak. Out of 10 decimals Gourhari Adak again sold 9 decimals and, accordingly, the opposite party/pre-emptee is a co-sharer of the plot since there is no partition in terms of Section 14 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Mr. Out of 10 decimals Gourhari Adak again sold 9 decimals and, accordingly, the opposite party/pre-emptee is a co-sharer of the plot since there is no partition in terms of Section 14 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that even if the case is considered on the basis of the evidence laid by the opposite party/pre-emptor that the property was separated by boundary, then also he would be an adjoining owner of the remaining plot of land. He submitted in both ways, if the case is considered, then the opposite party/pre-emptor is entitled to get the appeal allowed. 16. Mr. Bhattacharya then submitted that there was already an admission on record that the opposite party/pre-emptor is a co-sharer. He submitted whatever way one look, the opposite party/pre-emptor is a co-sharer of the same plot. Even if it is held that the property purchased is 9 decimals and is separated by fence then also he becomes an adjoining owner. According to him, there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the learned Appellate Court and the order passed by the Appellate Court should not be interfered with. He submitted this revisional application is of no merit and, as such, should be dismissed. 17. Considered the materials available on record as well arguments advanced and the pleadings available before the learned lower Court, it appears that the sole question would be whether on the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record, the opposite party/pre-emptor party is entitled to get preemption on the ground of adjoining ownership or on the ground being a co-sharer of the plot of land in question. 18. It is admitted position that the plot no. 566 consists of 19 decimals in total, out of which 9 decimals land was transferred in the year 1994 in favour of the opposite party/pre-emptor. It is on record that the portion so transferred was bounded by the purchaser, being the opposite party/pre-emptor and the remaining portion was held by the Gourhari Adak, the original owner, out of remaining 10 decimals 9 decimals was sold to the petitioner/pre-emptee and remaining one decimal was kept with Gourhari. Therefore, it is clear that the entire portion of the Gourhari Adak was not sold. 19. To that extent, the averments made by the petitioner/pre-emptee are incorrect. 20. Therefore, it is clear that the entire portion of the Gourhari Adak was not sold. 19. To that extent, the averments made by the petitioner/pre-emptee are incorrect. 20. So far the adjoining owner of the suit plot is concerned it is evident from record that Gourhari Adak after purchasing 19 decimals has got his portion bounded by boundary wall and, as such, he has become an adjoining owner. It may be that no partition suit was filed for separation but a particular demarcated property was sold to the opposite party/pre-emptor and that is how the opposite party/pre-emptor has become an adjoining owner in the plot. If it is tested from a different angle that a share of plot no.566 was sold to the pre-emptee/opposite party in the year 1994 and the property is not partitioned in terms of Section 14 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, then also the opposite party/pre-emptor became a co-sharer of the plot of land since portions of land so transferred are from same plot number. On that score also the opposite party/pre-emptor is entitled to get success in the proceedings. 21. However, the learned Appellate Court have discussed the issue elaborately and have come to a definite conclusion that the opposite party/pre-emptor is a co-sharer of the plot of land. 22. I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Appellate Court. The relevant portion of the order dealing with the case is quoted hereunder: “Both the points are taken up together for brevity of discussion. It appears from the record that ld. Court below has decided the issue nos. 1, 2 & 3 in favour of the petitioner and decided the issue nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7 against the petitioner. The prayer of preemption of the petitioner was refused by the ld. Court below on the ground that petitioner is not the adjoining land owner to the case land and the petitioner is not at all co-sharer over the suit plot. Ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted before this Court that the judgment and order passed by ld. Court below is palpably and the petitioner being a previous purchaser over the self same suit land became a co-sharer and the petitioner is not only co-sharer, but also contiguous land holder over the case plot. He further submitted before this Court that issue nos. Court below is palpably and the petitioner being a previous purchaser over the self same suit land became a co-sharer and the petitioner is not only co-sharer, but also contiguous land holder over the case plot. He further submitted before this Court that issue nos. 4 & 5 were not properly decided by the ld. Court below. He further contended that ld. Court below has misguided himself in deciding the case and he has wrongly hold that the boundary mentioned in the deed of the petitioner tantamounts to be “demarcated portion of plot. Ld. Advocate for the respondent submitted before this court that the petitioner is not at all co-sharer, but he may be a co-owner over the disputed plot and as per decision of Hon’ble Court, reported in 85 C.W.N. 782, the co-owner has no right to preempt. He further argued that a demarcated portion has been sold, so the petitioner cannot claim that he is a co-sharer over the disputed plot. He further argued that the consideration money as paid by the petitioner together with 10% interest is not proper and the order of ld. Court below is correct. Heard the ld. Advocate. Perused the materials on record. it is a crystal clear case and not disputed by the parties that suit plot no. 566, total measuring .19 decimals of land was previously belonged to Gourhari Adak. It is also not disputed that petitioner purchased 09 decimals of suit plot vide registered sale deed dated 14.6.94. After such purchase, rest 10 decimals of land was possessed by the erstwhile owner of the suit land. Thereafter, the owner transferred 09 decimals of land to the Opposite parties vide registered sale deed dated 5.6.2009 which is the disputed deed in question and for which the preemption is sought for. Ld. Court below has opined that during cross-examination of P.W. 1, he stated that he has no land adjoining to the case plot no. 566. He also opined that no case map was appended with the petition. Accordingly, the petitioner’s claim for contiguous raiyat is not tenable. It is clear that the petitioner has purchased earlier the suit plot measuring 09 decimals of land out of 19 decimals. 566. He also opined that no case map was appended with the petition. Accordingly, the petitioner’s claim for contiguous raiyat is not tenable. It is clear that the petitioner has purchased earlier the suit plot measuring 09 decimals of land out of 19 decimals. It is also not disputed by the parties, the respondent/opposite parties purchased 09 decimals of the self same suit property from the owner by the disputed registered deed which is later to the sale deed of the petitioner. Though, no case map was appended with the petition before the ld. Court below, but it is very unsafe to hold that the deposition of P.W. 1, who being a rustic villager and under the fire of cross-examination before the ld. Court below has stated the entire true accounts before the ld. Court below. However, in considering that whether the petitioner is a co-sharer over the suit property by purchase, I have to consider the fact who are the co-sharers. The word ‘cosharer’ ordinarily means a person who has share in the profits. After the commencement of chapter-6 of the W.B.E.A. Act and the vesting on interest of raiyat and under raiyats on and from April, 14, 1956 corresponding to Ist Baisakh, 1363 B.S., the co-sharer raiyat by a holding becomes a direct tenant under the State in respect of the land of the holding which he is entitled to retain under Sub-section-1 of Section-6. Raiyats become the direct tenant under the State of West Bengal, when a raiyat having a separate holding or tenancy created by virtue of Sub-section 2 of Section-6 dies leaving behind more than one heir. Such heirs will become co-sharer of such holding and will be entitled to the right of pre-emption. As per view of decision reported in A.I.R. 1972, Calcutta 502 and 76 C.W.N. 1058, when the raiyat of such holding transferred a portion of holding to another person, that person will become a co-sharer of the raiyat and the right of preemption will also be available in such a case the decisions were also followed and supported in decision reported in C.W.N. 654 and 60 C.W.N. 57. After amendment of present W.B.L.R. Act, the term “holding” has omitted and its place “plot of land” has been introduced. That amendment confers a sea change in the case of the preemption. After amendment of present W.B.L.R. Act, the term “holding” has omitted and its place “plot of land” has been introduced. That amendment confers a sea change in the case of the preemption. However, from the decision reported above, it is crystal clear that a person may become a cosharer over a plot of land if, he purchased any portion of plot number of land with the owner of the plot of land. In this present case, petitioner has purchased 09 decimals of suit plot vide sale deed dated 14.6.94. Accordingly, since then he became a co-sharer with the owner of the suit property. Ld. Court below has further opined that from the recitation of the sale deed of the petitioner, it would be revealed that a specified portion was transferred. So the property of petitioner is very much demarcated and he cannot claim preemption. To negative the claim of co-sharership, the land of the co-sharers must be partitioned by metes and bounds as per view of Section 14 of the W.B.L.R. Act. The averments in the deed is made for proper identification of the transfer property and it cannot be said that by such averment the plot was partitioned by metes and bounds from the petitioner with the erstwhile owner of the suit property. Accordingly, I am of the view that the petitioner is very much co-sharer by purchase over the suit plot and his right of preemption cannot be denied the opinion and decision passed by the ld. Court below is not proper. Ld. Advocate for the respondent further submitted before this court that the entire value of the disputed deed was not deposited by the petitioner before the ld. Court below. So, he is not entitled to get the order of preemption. In support of his contention, he has cited a decision reported in 85 C.W.N. 782. I have gone through the decision, wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Court that preemption application cannot entertained. When a portion of consideration money was deposited along with the interest before the Court. In the present case, it is the fact that 09 decimals of the suit plot was transferred along with the 06 decimals of non-suit plot which is not contiguous to the plot of the petitioner and he is not desirous to get order of preemption in respect of the non-suit plot. In the present case, it is the fact that 09 decimals of the suit plot was transferred along with the 06 decimals of non-suit plot which is not contiguous to the plot of the petitioner and he is not desirous to get order of preemption in respect of the non-suit plot. It Appears from the sale deed that total (09+06) = 15 decimals of plot was transferred by the impugned deed @ 49,000/-. The nature of both the plots being 'Kala', he cost of 09 decimals was correctly assessed as Rs. 29,400/-. Let me consider whether partial preemption is permissible. If partial preemption is permissible. The petitioner has no impediment to get the order of preemption. It has been reported in 1977 (2) C.L.J. 480 , that when several plots were sold in one sale deed and the pre-emptor was only an adjoining owner in respect of some of the plots. The pre-emptor applied for preemption of all those plots of land. Our Hon’ble Court has held that the order of preemption should be made in respect of those plots which were really contiguous to the plots of applicant. Accordingly, in this case the nonsuit plot bearing no. 565 is not contiguous to the plot of the petitioner. So, he is not desirous to get preemption in respect of that non-suit plot and in this case his preemption may be allowed in respect of suit plot only as in this case partial preemption is applicable. After going through the materials on record and after heading the arguments of both sides at length and also after consulting with the decisions as advanced by the ld. Advocates, I am of view that the ld. Court below has not correctly decided the issue nos. 5 & 6 against the petitioner he ought to have allowed the prayer of preemption of the petitioner on the ground of co-shareship. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Ld. Court below is hereby set aside. The petitioner is entitled to get the order of preemption. Hence, it is, Ordered That the instant Misc. Appeal be and the same is allowed on contest. The petitioner/appellant’s prayer for preemption is considered and allowed. The petitioner is entitled to get the order of preemption in respect of the suit property. Court below is hereby set aside. The petitioner is entitled to get the order of preemption. Hence, it is, Ordered That the instant Misc. Appeal be and the same is allowed on contest. The petitioner/appellant’s prayer for preemption is considered and allowed. The petitioner is entitled to get the order of preemption in respect of the suit property. The right, title, interest and possession of the suit property measuring 09 decimals which was transferred in favour of the opposite party by virtue of the sale deed dated 05.6.2009 do vest to the petitioner. The opposite party/respondent is entitled to get the consideration money along with the interest as deposited before the ld. Court below. Accordingly, the Misc. Appeal is disposed of.” 23. Accordingly, in the instant case, if the matter is tested from any of the two angles, one would get positive answer in favour of the opposite party/pre-emptor meeting both grounds. Therefore, there could not be and/or should not be any doubt that the opposite party/pre-emptor has failed to prove his case before the learned Trial Court or before the Appellate Court. 24. The judgments cited by Mr. Gupta are not at all relevant for this case because the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment dealt with the property belonging to a joint family and sale of undivided share in a joint family by a coparcener. Therefore, those judgments are on different subjects and different tests laid down for deciding the issue involved which has no nexus and relevance or bearings in the instant case. 25. So far the valuation part is concerned, the facts of Bimal Sadhan Koley (supra) is totally different with the facts and circumstances of this case. In the instant case, two properties were transferred by a single registered sale-deed and the petitioner/pre-emptor exercised his right against a particular property. Two properties were situated in the adjoining area and the Appellate Court have assessed the valuation per decimal taking the same value of both plots on the ground of vicinity. Therefore, the ratio of this judgment do not apply in the instant case. 26. This Court also did not find any illegality and/or material irregularity in assessing the land value by the lower Court below and also the valuation made by the pre-emptee/opposite party. Therefore, the plea take by Mr. Gupta is also of no substance. 27. The two other judgments cited by Mr. 26. This Court also did not find any illegality and/or material irregularity in assessing the land value by the lower Court below and also the valuation made by the pre-emptee/opposite party. Therefore, the plea take by Mr. Gupta is also of no substance. 27. The two other judgments cited by Mr. Gupta is again under the different facts and circumstances and have no relevance in the instant case. Therefore, the ratio of those judgments are also not at all applicable in the instant case. 28. Accordingly, this revisional application is of no merit and, as such, dismissed. 29. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.