ORDER This application in revision arises out of pre-emption proceedings. Ram Krishna, opposite party no.1, the pre-emptor filed au application under S. 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1953 for pre-emption in respect of a deed of sale of 10th July, 1968 executed by Banamali in favour Suresh, opposite, party no. 2. The application was contested by the present petitioner Basanti who was the subsequent transferee from Banamail. 2. The learned Munsif dismissed the application for pre-emption. He found that the Sale by Banamali to Suresh was coupled with an agreement for re-purchase, in pursuance of which Suresh re-sold the same land to Banamali on 18-11.1970. Subsequently on 22.11.70 Banamali sold the same land to Basanti the present petitioner. The application for pre-emption was filed on January 13, 1971. The learned Munsif held that in the circumstances the transaction of 10th July, 1968 was not an out and out sale. Hence it was not liable to pre-emption. 3 On appeal the finding was reversed. The learned District Judge held that the alleged agreement of re-conveyance was an un-registered one. It was not incorporated in the deed of sale dated 10th July, 1968 Moreover the pre-emptor had no notice of this agreement. The transaction was a sale (and not a loan)' and hence liable to Pre-emption. The application for pre-emption was allowed. Aggrieved the transferee has come to this Court in revision. 4. The position is that the transaction of 10th July, 1968 was a sale. It was a sale by Banamali to Suresh a stranger to the holding. Suresh re-sold the same land to Banamali. Later on Banamali sold it to the present petitioner Basanti, who was a pre existing co-share in the holding. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a pre-existing co-sharer in the holding lie took the transfer from Banamali. The transaction in favour of the petitioner was not to a stranger. The sale of 10th July, 1968 in favour of Suresh came to an end when Suresh re-conveyed the property to the original transferee on 18.11.1970 From that date onwards Banamali the original co-sharer became the owner Suresh's title extinguished Hence the sale dated 10th July, 1968 which stood Cancelled could no longer be subject to pre-emption. 6. The sale of 10th July, 1968 in favour of Suresh came to an end when Suresh re-conveyed the property to the original transferee on 18.11.1970 From that date onwards Banamali the original co-sharer became the owner Suresh's title extinguished Hence the sale dated 10th July, 1968 which stood Cancelled could no longer be subject to pre-emption. 6. Learned counsel for the oppo8ite party submitted that the consistent view of this court is that on sale to a stranger, right of pre-emption accrues. All subsequent transfers ale subject to this right of preemption. 7. In Awadh Bihari v. Gajadhar, AIR 1954 SC 417 it was ruled that the right of pro-emption attaches to the property. The benefit and burden of the right of pre-emption runs with the land and can be enforced by or against the owner of the land for the time being. It was not a mere personal right. There are several decisions of this Court proceeding on the same view. 8. In Sheikh Lakeman Ali v. Abdul Motalib & anr. 50 CWN 807 it was held that as soon as a transfer of a share in a non-occupancy holding is made, a right to pre emption immediately accrues to the co-sharer tenants. Any subsequent transferee of the holding takes it subject to that right, whether the transfer is made before or after the institution of an application for pre-emption. This view was re-affirmed in Tarapada Karati v. Sudhamoy Dolui & ors. 53, CWN 678 and Nishi Kanta Das v. Jnanendra Nath Mondal & ors 57 CWN 253. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that these decisions were cases where the transferee including the subsequent transferee was a stranger These authorities will not hence apply to a case where the ultimate transferee is a co-sharer. I am afraid the submission is not quite correct. In 53 CHN 678 the stranger transferee had transferred the same land to the transferor co-sharer. Thereafter the co-sharer executed the sale in favour of another stranger The application for pre-emption of the first sale was allowed in spite of the fact that subsequently there was re-sale by the stranger to the co sharer and there was no prayer for pre-emption of the second sale by the co-sharer to the other stranger. 10. In the case of Nishi anta Das v Jnanendra Nath Mondal & ors. 10. In the case of Nishi anta Das v Jnanendra Nath Mondal & ors. 57, CWN 253 a co-sharer on 19th July, 1949 sold some land to a stranger. The stranger transferred on May 15, 1950 re-sold the same land to the co-sharer. The application for pre-emption filed by another co-sharer was allowed. It was held by a division bench of this court that by the initial transfer the entire right, title and interest in the property passed to the transferee, and the moment such transfer of interest took place, the right of co-sharers to apply for pre-emption arose. All subsequent transfers by the transferee of an occupancy holding were subject to the right of the preemption under S. 26 F of the Bengal Tenancy Act. 11. This was a case where on date of the application for pre-emption, the property had become vested in the original co-sharer, yet pre-emption was allowed. 12. The West Bengal Land reforms Act has given statutory recognition to the view expressed in the aforesaid decisions Section 9(2) of the Act provides : “When any person acquires the right, title and interest of the transferee in such holding by succession or otherwise, the right, title and interest acquired by him shall be subject to the right conferred by sub-s (1) of S.8 on a co-sharer raiyat or a raiyat possessing land adjoining the holding”. 13. This provision applies to any person who acquires the interest of the transferee, irrespective of the face whether they do so by succession or ‘otherwise’. In the absence of any limiting factor, the term ‘otherwise’ will include a co-sharer who acquires the title of the transferee by re-purchase. His subsequent transferee will be in no better position. The petitioner is clearly within the purview of S. 9(2) of the Act. His application for pre-emption was validity allowed. The revision fails. The Rule is accordingly discharged. No order as to costs. Rule discharged.