JUDGMENT : Mir Dara Sheko, J. Though the lower court records was called for by an order dated July 15, 2015, the department has produced only two files in connection with Misc. Appeal No. 44 of 2016 from where the record of learned trial Judge who has disposed of the pre-emption case on the basis of evidence-both oral and documentary is not available. 2. Mr Debdutta Basu assisted by Mr Sudip Sarkar represents the petitioner-appellant who is the pre-emptor who will be called on hereafter as the petitioner. 3. From the affidavit of service it appears that notice was served upon the opposite party, but none represents her. Therefore, considering the nature of the proceeding the case is taken up for consideration and disposal on merit on the basis of the available materials on record at the instance of learned advocate for the petitioner. 4. Let a copy of the impugned deed dated April 1, 2002 executed by Naba Kumar Kundu in favour of the opposite party, Sarathi Halder, and a copy of the R.S. Khatian No. 29 of Mouza Krishnagang bearing Entry of the case plot No. 341, as supplied by Mr Basu, be taken on record. 5. The application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been directed assailing the judgment delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I at Krishnagar, Nadia in Misc. Appeal No. 44 of 2006 reversing the pre-emption order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Krishnagar in Misc. Case No. 11 of 2002. 6. As it reveals, the case property comprised of plot No. 341, nature of the property being homestead, having an area of 21 decimals originally belonged to one Amulya Kumar Kundu. Ultimately by way of inheritance Gauranga Kundu and Naba Kumar Kundu being his two sons inherited said 21 decimals. During their possession both the brothers had sold out 5 decimals out of 21 decimals with specific demarcation to one Manju Biswas. Naba Kumar sold impugned 3 decimals of said homestead plot with specific demarcation in favour of the opposite party, Sarathi Halder, on April 1, 2002, registration of which was completed on April 2, 2002, since the said deed was copied in the registry office on April 2, 2002. 7. Naba Kumar sold impugned 3 decimals of said homestead plot with specific demarcation in favour of the opposite party, Sarathi Halder, on April 1, 2002, registration of which was completed on April 2, 2002, since the said deed was copied in the registry office on April 2, 2002. 7. Within a few days, i.e. on April 9, 2002, again those two brothers jointly sold 10 decimals with specific demarcation to one Krishna Nath Roy and others and by such process Gouranga had exhausted 7½ decimals out of 21 decimals and Naba Kumar exhausted 10½ decimals including the disputed 3 decimals. 8. Gouranga, being the petitioner, filed the pre-emption case to pre-empt said 3 decimals of property sold by his brother Naba Kumar in favour of the opposite party, Sarathi, as mentioned above. It is asserted that since the said purchase was held beyond his knowledge and without notice, and since there was never partition by metes and bounds, the said property measuring 3 decimals being liable to be pre-empted Gouranga Kundu filed the pre-emption case by depositing the consideration money with statutory interest for preemption under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. 9. The opposite party in her turn submitting written objection averred that since there was transfer held by both the brothers with specific demarcation and since after purchase the opposite party has been occupying the same by raising construction of their residential house and since in view of the effecting partition between the brothers, the concept of co-sharership would no more be available. Therefore, urging non-applicability of section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 the opposite party-pre-emptee prayed for disposal of the application. 10. Learned trial court upon examination of the evidence - both oral and documentary - took note of the fact that O.P. Sarathi Halder (O.P.W.1) admitted at page 7 of her cross examination that suit plot has not been partitioned. The law is set at rest that concept of partition cannot be accepted de hors the provision laid down under section 14 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. There is no material on record to show that there was any such document invoking section 14 of the 1955 Act in support of proof of partition. 11. The law is set at rest that concept of partition cannot be accepted de hors the provision laid down under section 14 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. There is no material on record to show that there was any such document invoking section 14 of the 1955 Act in support of proof of partition. 11. It is true that before and after the impugned deed there was two transfers, one was held for 5 decimals and the other for 10 decimals, and, on both the occasions those two brothers-Gouraga and Naba Kumar had executed the deeds by specifying the demarcated area which was sold in favour of the respective purchasers. By such conduct those two brothers can be estopped to oppose in any manner as against their transfer of the demarcated area covered by those two respective deeds of transfer held in favour of Manju Biswas and the other in favour of Krishna Nath Roy and others. Because both of them have jointly executed those deeds and specially when save and except those two brothers there were no other co-sharers in the case plot or in the property left by their predecessor Amulya Kumar Kundu. But the same concept cannot be available in case of the transfer by Naba Kumar alone who had transferred the impugned 3 decimals of land out of 21 decimals of the homestead plot in favour of the opposite party specifying the demarcated area. Because in absence of partition under law the sale by demarcation by Naba Kumar alone shall not be binding upon his brother Gouranga. Meaning thereby the remaining portion beyond transfers, one in favour of Manju Biswas and the other in favour of Krishna Nath Roy and others (supra) remained joint property without severance of co-sharership so far as the remaining portion of the case plot is concerned. 12. Under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 though the right of pre-emption by nature is a weak right; but said right cannot be prevented, if a co-sharer really is entitled to. It is upon the choice of the co-sharer who would bear a third person and who would not be borne. Therefore, the opposite party having not given any exposure of her nexus that is any existing right over the case property her status obviously was a stranger purchaser. 13. It is upon the choice of the co-sharer who would bear a third person and who would not be borne. Therefore, the opposite party having not given any exposure of her nexus that is any existing right over the case property her status obviously was a stranger purchaser. 13. Now, the provision of section 8(1) has already been interpreted by this court. It may also be available in the case of Amal Kumar Ballav & Anr. v. Juran Krishan Mazumdar reported in (2016) 4 Cal LT 290 (HC) where, in para.23, the availability of right of pre-emption has been discussed by interpreting the language of the section itself. Let me set out para.23 of the said case:- "23. Let me read and interpret the relevant words from within section 8 of the Act to determine the right of pre-emption which is applicable to whom and when. The words, "a portion or share" of a plot i.e. the word "or" in the middle, of "a portion" and "share" as it stands, has been put to signify only "or" and not 'and' in any sense. Now if it is read to interpret the intention of legislature by keeping "or" between "a portion" and "share" then it may be read like this viz., a portion of a plot of land means, even may be in fraction out of share what belongs to a raiyat in the plot of land, whatever would be transferred to a stranger, is subject to pre-emption." 14. Therefore, the opposite party, having failed to show any pre-existing status upon the case plot, became a stranger purchaser to such homestead land and while the co-sharer of such property is not ready to accept such a stranger and for which the right of pre-emption as available under the law has been sought to be exercised, and, since by analysing the materials on record and the law in the field such right is answered favourably in the affirmative, learned appellate court has committed illegality in reversing the order of pre-emption case, and therefore, the judgment of learned appellate court dated March 31, 2008 in reversing the order of learned trial court's judgment is set aside. Therefore, affirming the pre-emption order dated July 24, 2006 passed by learned trial court, the revisional application is allowed. 15. No order as to costs. 16. Therefore, affirming the pre-emption order dated July 24, 2006 passed by learned trial court, the revisional application is allowed. 15. No order as to costs. 16. The department is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment to learned trial court with reference to Misc. Case No. 11 of 2002 of the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Krishnagar for information at once. 17. Let the LCR as received only in respect of Misc. Appeal (not of the trial court) be returned at once along with a copy of this judgment from where it was received. 18. Certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties.