High Court Division · Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Nurunnahar Begum and others v Sahid Ullah and others
Civil Revision 4548/2011 · Rule discharged; pre-emption upheld · Decided 10 June 2026
The pre-emptor filed a case in 1981 under section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 to pre-empt a transfer of 99 decimals by the vendor (pre-emptee No. 2) to the purchaser (pre-emptee No. 1). Pre-emptee No. 14, who had bought 54 decimals from the purchaser, was added and argued that the purchaser was a co-sharer by inheritance from her father, so section 96(10)(a) barred the case. The Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Chandpur allowed pre-emption in 2005 and the Additional District Judge, Chandpur dismissed the appeal in 2011. His successors sought revision. The High Court Division held that under the Bengal School of Hindu Law a daughter cannot inherit while her father's widow is alive, and there was no evidence the widow had died, so the purchaser was not a co-sharer by inheritance. The courts below erred in treating the pre-emptor as a co-sharer by inheritance and in omitting that vital issue, but he was proved a co-sharer by purchase. The Rule was discharged.
- Whether the purchaser under the impugned transfer was a co-sharer by inheritance, so that pre-emption was barred by section 96(10)(a) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950.
- Whether, under the Bengal School of Hindu Law, a daughter inherits her father's property during the lifetime of his widow.
- Whether a pre-emptor who is a co-sharer by purchase can pre-empt a transfer to a stranger to the holding.
- Under section 96(10)(a) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950, pre-emption is not maintainable against a transfer to a co-sharer whose interest accrued otherwise than by purchase, that is by inheritance.
- Under the Bengal School of Hindu Law, a daughter cannot inherit her father's property during the lifetime of any widow of her father, so the purchaser was not a co-sharer by inheritance at the time of the impugned purchase.
- A legal position cannot be changed by the admission of a party, so the pre-emptor's admission that the purchaser inherited the property did not make her a co-sharer by inheritance.
- The courts below erred in treating the pre-emptor as a co-sharer by inheritance and in not framing the vital issue of whether the purchaser was a co-sharer, but their conclusion was correct because the pre-emptor proved he was a co-sharer by purchase.
- A stranger to the holding, such as added pre-emptee No. 14, had no right to resist pre-emption by a co-sharer of the holding.
From plain reading of the above provision it is clear that preemption against a transfer to a co-sharer who is a co-sharer other than by purchase, meaning thereby inheritance, is not maintainable.
