An agreement for reconveyance of land, entered into simultaneously with the sale, does not create any interest in the property involved and therefore cannot be enforced against a person who has obtained the land by virtue of an order passed under section 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

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. 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