JUDGMENT Hari Lal Agrawal, J. This application arises out of a proceding under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. The pre-emptors are the petitioners. The land in question consists of two plots, namely, 887 and 888, having a total area of 1.32 acres. In this case, however, only 66 decimals are concerned situated on the eastern side out of the aforesaid two plots which fell to the share of Md. Sulaiman, respondent No.4, on partition with his brother. He sold the said land by a sale deed dated 10.5.1979 to Jageshwar Rai, respondent No.3 for Rs. 9,000/-. Some time later, on 25.7.1979 the brother of Md. Sulaiman, namely, Md. Harun, (respondent no. 5) also sold the land by three separate sale deeds, each in respect of 2 decimals, to respondents 1 to 3 who are brothers. The petitioners filed pre-emption application with respect to the first transaction, on 27.8.1979 and another application with respect to the subsequent transfer, on 6.11.79 against the respective purchasers claiming pre-emption on the basis of two survey plots bearing Nos. 1056 and 1065. 2. The stand of the purchasers was that they having purchased part of the plots in question on 10.5.79 and the western half of the same plots on 25.7.1979, i.e. prior to the application for pre-emption, they themselves become adjacent raiyats of each part, namely, eastern and the western parts with respect to the transfers of land involved in the two transactions and, therefore, the pre-emption application was not maintainable. 3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms respondent no.6, however, by his order dated 5.8.80 (Annexure 1) allowed the application for pre-emption and on appeal by the purchaser the Additional Collector, respondent No. 7, by his order dated 30.12.80 (Annexure 2) affirmed the said order and dismissed the appeal, but on revision before the Board of Revenue by the purchasers, i.e., respondents 1 to 3, the Additional Member, Board of Revenue respondent No.8, by his order dated 18.3.81 (Annexure 3) rejected the claim for pre-emption and accordingly the pre-emptors have filed the present writ application. 4. It was strongly submitted on behalf of the petitioners by Shri Shravan Kr. 4. It was strongly submitted on behalf of the petitioners by Shri Shravan Kr. that the preemption application having been filed within the period of limitation, i.e. within three months from the date of the registration of the documents, the face of the purchasers themselves acquiring another portion of the plots in question adjacent to the previous demised land would not defect the right of the petitioners to claim pre-emption. 5. Having given my anxious consideration to all the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I do not find substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners. It is no doubt true that three months' time bas been allowed. for making an application for pre- emption but in my opinion this fact would not have any bearing on the events that might take place during the period of the registration and the documents of the transfer in question of the date of the application for pre-emption. I may, state my view by an illustration, namely, where there is a complete cessation of title of the purchaser with respect to the transferred land in the mean time by voluntary or involuntary disposition or the same. Taking notice of subsequent events is a well recognised principle of jurisprudence, Under the schems of law of pre-emption, the purchaser hat to reconvey the land to the pre-emptor in case the pre-emption application succeeds and therefore, existence of markatable and subsisting title in the purchaser is a sine qua non for the success of the pre-emptor. It is well settled by a series of decisions that the right of pre-emption can be defeated by the transferees if be himself happens to be a co-sharer or adjacent raiyat of the vended land. On that footing the right of pre-emption can also be neutralised if before the date of the application for pre-emption the transferee himself acquires the status either of a cosharer or an adjacent raiyat in relation to the transferred land. The crucial date contemplated under section 10 3) therefore cannot be the date of the registration of the, document of transfer but the data on which application for pre- emption is made under section 16(3) of the Act. The crucial date contemplated under section 10 3) therefore cannot be the date of the registration of the, document of transfer but the data on which application for pre- emption is made under section 16(3) of the Act. I find full support for this view from a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Chandra Srivastava and others v. Parsidh Narain Singh and others (1970 B.L.J.R. 1101) where it was observed that there being no restriction upon any further transaction being made within the period of three months contemplated in Sub-section (3), the right is bound to be lost if by the time the application if filed before the Collector the purpose itself loses the character or being a cosharer or owner of adjoining land or the person against whom the right is claimed, acquires a status equal to that of the pre-emptor. The right of course cannot be defeated if all the requisite conditions are found to exist on the date of the application by any subsequent transaction and the rule of lis pendens would apply to such transactions. 6. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in this application and would dismiss the same but in the circumstances would leave the parties to bear their own costs. Application dismissed.