JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Alipur in title appeal no. 344 of 69 confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Additional Court, Diamond Harbour in Title Suit No. 518 of 1967. 2. Plaintiffs’ suit was a suit for specific performance of contract for reconveyance of the suit land. The disputed land belonged to Hare Krishna Ghosh. Hare Krishna sold it to pro-defendant no. 2 by a registered kobala dated 8.1.65 with a condition for reconveyance. It was stipulated that if Hare Krishna pays back the consideration money within Chaitra, 1381 B.S. pro-defendant no. 2 would execute and register a deed of conveyance in favour of Hare Krishna. On the date of the transfer defendant no. 2 executed a deed of agreement on the same date to that effect. The plaintiff on the death of Hare Krishna tendered the money to pro-defendant no. 2 who refused to accept the same and disclosed that defendant no. 1 has pre-empted the suit land in a pre-emption proceedings. In the said proceedings the defendant no. raised on objection stating that the transfer in his favour was subject to an agreement for reconveyance. Plaintiff then tendered money to defendant no. 1 but he refused to accept. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit. Defendant no. 2 contested the suit. His defence was that he is a bonafide purchases for value without notice and deed of agreement of reconveyance was ante-dated and not a simultaneous transaction. 3. Both the trial court and the first appellate court held that the agreement of reconveyance was simultaneous and also held that the defendant no. 1 had notice of the agreement of sale in favour of the original owner. The trial court decreed the suit and the first appellate court affirmed the same. 4. Mr. Panda appearing for the appellant has submitted that the courts below have made an error in law in decreeing tile suit for specific performance of contract. He contended that the consequence of an order passed under s. 8 of the Went Bengal Land Reforms Act is laid down in s. 10. 4. Mr. Panda appearing for the appellant has submitted that the courts below have made an error in law in decreeing tile suit for specific performance of contract. He contended that the consequence of an order passed under s. 8 of the Went Bengal Land Reforms Act is laid down in s. 10. It provides that on an order under section being made the right, title and interest of the raiyat and all the transferees or of the person mentioned in sub-s. (2) of s. 9 who acquires any right, title and interest in the holding shall vest in the raiyat whose application for transfer has been allowed by the authorities contemplated in the section. Accordingly, Mr. Panda submits that whatever right, title and interest of the raiyat who is the original transferor and of the transferee shall vest in the raiyat whose application for preemption has been allowed by the court. Accordingly, he submits the right of the original owner Hare Krishna for getting reconveyance of the property from defendant no. 1 in terms of the agreement has also vested in the appellant who obtained the property by virtue of an order passed under s. 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. According to Mr. Panda the provision of s. 10 enumerates the consequence of an order under s. 9. As it lays down that right, title and interest of the raiyat transferor shall vest in the person in whose favour an order under s. 9 has been made, takes away the right of the original vendor to get a reconveyance of the property in question in his favour from the transferee on the strength of a contemporaneous agreement for sale of the property in his favour. Accordingly, he submits the courts below have erred in law in decreeing the suit. 5. It is true that if the sale is accompanied by a simultaneous or contemporaneous agreement for reconveyance of the property such agreement cannot operate as a bar for exercising the right of pre-emption contemplated by s. 8. But I am not faced with this question at the moment. The question that crops up for consideration is if the said contemporaneous agreement cm be specifically enforced. Mr. Banerjee appearing for the respondents has relied on a decision reported in AIR 1955 Cal. But I am not faced with this question at the moment. The question that crops up for consideration is if the said contemporaneous agreement cm be specifically enforced. Mr. Banerjee appearing for the respondents has relied on a decision reported in AIR 1955 Cal. 21 = 88 CWN 1000 (Sital Chandra Kolley v. Mihilal Kolley) submitted that in view of s. 26F(7) of the Bengal Tenancy Act which contained effectively the same provision as s. 10 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, a Division Bench of this Court has held that an application for pre-emption under s. 26F of the Bengal Tenancy Act would be maintainable even if there is a contemporaneous agreement of re-sale. The Division Bench of the court observed in para 19 that “an agreement for re-sale may well stand side by side with a sale and/or an agreement for sale. They do not necessarily involve any incongruity or illegality. The fact that the sale and the re-sale are to be effected as separate and independent transaction does not prevent the obligation under the agreement for re-sale from becoming annexed to the ownership (which passes by the sale) simultaneously with the transfer so as to remain unaffected by sub-s. (7) of S. 26F of B.T. Act. The obligation under the agreement for re-sale becomes annexed to the ownership by reason of principle underlying s. 40 of the Transfer of Property Act. That section, it is true applies generally speaking only to the voluntary transfer but the principle underlying it does apply to involuntary transfer as well including the statutory transfer, unless excluded either expressly or by necessary implication" Accordingly, Mr. Banerjee submitted that the agreement for reconveyance can he enforced against the person in whose favour order under s. 9 of L.R. Act has been made. 6. It appeal that s. 26F(7) B.T. Act, provided that the right, title and interest accruing to the transferee from the transfer vests in the successful pre-emptor free from all encumbrances which have been created after the date transfer. Under the above decision the court held the agreement for re-sale though not an encumbrance created after the sale of the property but the obligation to re-sale the annexed to the ownership simultaneously with the transfer and it remains unaffected by the provisions of s. 26F(7). Under the above decision the court held the agreement for re-sale though not an encumbrance created after the sale of the property but the obligation to re-sale the annexed to the ownership simultaneously with the transfer and it remains unaffected by the provisions of s. 26F(7). It may be noted that there are difference between provisions of s. 26F(7) B.T. Act and provisions of s. 10 W.B. Land Reforms Act. Section 10 contemplated that the right, title and interest of the raiyat and of the transferee shall vest in the person in whose favour order under s. 9 is made. It does not refer to specifically encumbrances created after the transfer. What is vested in the right, title and interest of the raiyat transferor. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act lays down that contract for sale does not and by itself create any interest in or charge on such property. It, therefore, follows that an agreement for sale does not create any interest in the property involved. Therefore, it cannot stand vested in the person in whose favour order under s. 9 L.R. Act is made. Provision of s. 10 in my view therefore does not come in aid of the appellant. 7. On other aspects, the courts below have found that the appellant had the notice of agreement of sale and that the agreement for sale was simultaneous with the transfer made by the defendant in favour of defendant no. 1. These two points being the question of facts, this court has little scope for entering into the merit of these two findings. Accordingly, I an unable to find any merits in this appeal and the same stand dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.