Jogendra Lal Ghosh vs Manik Lal Ghosh and Others

Henderson, J.—This rule has been obtained in connexion with an application for pre-emption u/s 26F, Ben. Ten. Act. The petitioner is the vendor. He only transferred a portion of his interest and the question for determination is whether he is entitled to join in the application under Sub-section (i) made by another cosharer. It is obvious that the vendor could not make an original application of his own. Prima facie there is no reason why a person not so entitled should be allowed to join. There is, however, an express provision allowing a transferee to do so. The omission of the transferor is, therefore, significant. There would be an inherent absurdity in allowing a vendor to pre-empt and I can find nothing in the section to suggest that such was the intention of the Legislature. The rule is discharged. I make no order as to costs.