B. PANIGRAHI, J.

(1) IN these two revisional applications the parties being the same and the points involved being identical, they were heard together and are disposed of hereunder.

(2) THE opposite party in J. Misc. Case No. 94 filed an application under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act for pre-emption of Plot No. 1333 of mouja uttar sonamui under Khatian No. 686. The case of opposite party in his application under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act is as follows:-That the lands measuring 10 decimals appartaining to R. S. Khatian No. 686 originally belonged to Sk. Md. Musa who gifted away the to his wife Masidnnesha. Donee after enjoying properties, for sometime again gave away the property to her sons Sk. Saidul Islam and Sk. Mahinuddin under registered gift deed dated 17. 10. 81. The two brothers sold the properties under the registered sale deed dated 7. 1. 84 to the revisional petitioners. The pre-emptor has alleged in his application, that he being the co-sharer and adjacent raiyat possessing land in Plot No. 1334 is entitled to pre-empt the land in Plot No. 1333 which allegedly was conveyed to the revision petitioners. It is further stated that the pre-emptees not being the contiguous owner also cannot claim the land covered under Plot No. 1333. The learned 1st Munsif at Tamluk allowed the application for pre-emption. Being aggrieved by such judgement, the pre-emptees had filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Midnapur which was eventually transferred to the 6th Court of Additional District Judge. The Additional District Judge also has affirmed the findings of the learned Munsif in Misc. Appeal No. 7/ 90 and has however, dismissed the appeal. Therefore, being aggrieved by the affirming judgement of the learned Additional District Judge the pre-emptee filed this revisional application.

(3) MR. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued to support of the revision case. He indicated that his clients having purchased the entire holding belonging to the vendors, such petition claiming pre-emption at the instance of the opposite party is untenable and not maintainable in law. In support of his stand, he relied on a decision reported in AIR 1979 Cal. 174 [LQ/CalHC/1979/78] in the case of Saranan Mondol v Bejoy Bhushan Ghosh. It is no doubt true that the single bench of this Court held that if the entire holding is conveyed to a person it would not come within the mischief of section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. But here Mr. A. N. Saha, the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party-pre-emptor has invited my attention to the definition of "holding" after amendment of West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The definition of holding has been, stated in the under section 2 (6) of the"land or lands held by a raiyat and treated as a unit for assessment of revenue". The said definition has undergone drastic amendment with effect from 14th April. 1981 and the words "and treated as a unit for assessment of revenue" have been deleted. This Court has more often than not considered the scope and ambit of the definition of "holding". In the case of Debendra Nath Karak v Rekha Pal. 1986 (1) Cal. law Journal, 227 it has been held that a raiyat may have lands in deferent Districts in West Bengal. All his lands taken together would constitute a single holding. It is not necessary that all those lands would bear the same revenue unit. Therefore, in the instant case, it is to be considered whether the vendor of the pre-emptee had any other land apart from the Plot No. 1333.

(4) MR. Bhattacharjee strongly urged that neither in the pleadings nor in the evidence the pre-emptor had claimed that the vendor of the preemptee had any other land besides Plot No. 1333. From the cross examination of the opposite Party, it was elicited that the vendor of the pre-emptee has other land in West Bengal and so the entire land in his name has not been transferred. Therefore, the plea raised by the revision petitioners that the vendor of the revision petitioners sold the entire holding to them cuts no ice. Undisputedly, the opposite party No. l is the contiguous owner who holds adjoining land in Plot No. 1334 which lies to the north of Plot No. 1332 and 1333.

(5) APART from this submission, I find no other points having been raised by the learned Advocate for the revision-petitioners, therefore, I am constrained to observe that the orders impugned before me for having not suffered from any factual or legal infirmities, it is hereby affirmed.

(6) PLOT No. 1332 was admittedly purchased by the revision-petitioners Mr. Asraf Ali on 3. 7. 84 and it was registered on 19. 10. 1985. It is also not in dispute that the opposite party has own land in Plot No. 1333 laying to the east of the disputed Plot.

(7) MR. Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel appearing for the revisionist, has advanced a contention that the pre-emptees have own their land in Plot No. 1333 and therefore they being the contiguous owner the claim by the opposite party on the ground of vicinage is untenable in law. In the other case namely in C. R. No. 3347/90 it has been already decided that the pre-emptee has no right to hold the land which was purchased by them. In the other words, the judgment passed by the courts below allowing the pre-emption is maintained so the revision petitioners cannot be held to be the contiguous owner. The revision petitioners have however, advanced an interesting plea that the other co-sharer of the pre-emptees vendor having not joined in the application by the opposite party, the application under section 8 is not maintainable. It is further asserted that there is no proof of partition indicating that the suit Plot was divided between the revision petitioners vendor and his brother. Therefore, the petition under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act for preemption does not arise. Mr. Bhattacharjee has also placed some inconsistent statement of the witnesses in course of heating. But I am afraid that in this revisional application this Court would be competent to make re-appraisal of the evidence which both the courts have concurrently held that there was a partition between the vendor of the pre-emptee and his brother. This point was also placed into service by the revision petitioners in the courts below, the appellate court recorded its findings that there was partition between the vendor and his brother, in case of an amicable partition there is no legal requirement that such partition must be by a registered instrument; even each brother enjoying his portion separately for along time without any instrument can raise a presumption of partition and separate possession.

(8) IN this case, both the courts having consistently held that there was partition, therefore, it is not open to the revision-petitioners again to reagitate the indentical question. In the document under which the Plot No. 1334 was conveyed to the petitioners, the brother of their vendor has been described as the owner of the southern portion of that plot. Therefore, it can safely be concluded in the above facts and circumstances, that there was a partition between the vendor of the petitioners and his brother for Plot No. 1334 and the portion which was sold to the petitioners was under their vendors possession.

(9) IN this back-drop, the application of the opposite party for preemption under the ground of contiguous ownership does not suffer from any factual and legal infirmity. The opposite party has also a formidable point in his favour inasmuch as the claim for pre-emption in respect of Plot No. 1333 having allowed the revision petitioners cannot be said to be the contiguous owner.

(10) IN the result, I do not find any merit in both revision case. Accordingly, those are dismissed but in the circumstances the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Revisional applications dismissed