Law: Bengal Tenacny Act (VIII of 1885)

Section:

Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885), Ss. 26-C & 26-F Execution of sale-deed requiring registration -Transferee's title runs from date of execution but co-sharer's right to pre-empt accrues from date of registration and not earlier-Transferee effecting improvement on land can claim amount spent bona fide Question of fact-To be decided by lower Courts-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181.   Asmat Sharip v. Mujaharali Sardar 52 C W N 64 and Gosto   Behari Das v. Rajabale Devi and another 60 C W N 57 ref. JUDGMENT   This application in revision arises out of a proceeding started by the opposite-party for pre-emption of some land transferred by his co-sharers in favour of the present petitioner before me.   The transfer in question was affected by a deed of sale dated 6th November 1956,but the document was registered on 1-1-57. The application for pre-emption was filed by the opposite-party on 18-12-59. It is admitted that the opposite-party was not served with any notice of transfer under the provisions of section 26-C of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The opposite-party has been found to be a co-sharer and it has not been challenged before me on behalf of the present petitioner that he was a co-sharer of the disputed holding.   The, application for pre-emption was resisted by the present petitioner on the groundthat the application was barred by limitation. The petitioner further contended that the applica tion was barred by waiver and estoppel as the petitioner purchased the land at the request of Fulbarennessa, the natural guardian of the minor petitioner. It was also the case of the petitioner that after his purchase he had excavated a tank on the disputed land at a cost of about Rs. 1,200 and, therefore, he was entitled to that amount by way of compensation.   Both the Courts below have negatived the present petitioner's contention about waiver and estoppel on evidence. This is a finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts and, there fore, the question cannot be agitated in revision.   Mr. Mofizuddin Ahmed, the learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has raised two points in this Rule. He has firstly…