( 1 ) THE only point which arises in this appeal is whether a contract for sale of land stood discharged and came to an end by reason of certain intervening or supervening circumstances, to which due reference will be made in the course of this judgment. The point was, even lately, not free from doubt and it was beset with considerable difficulties, but a recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court has clarified the position and considerably lightened our task.

( 2 ) THE law to be considered is the law of frustration of contract as applicable to this country. The matter appears to be concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Satyabrate Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co. . where under apparently similar circumstances, their Lordships of the Supreme Court rejected the plea of frustration of the contract, but, as the said case has been sought to be distinguished on facts and a seemingly new question has also been raised for our consideration and as it his been further argued that this Court, though bound by the Supreme Court's statement or enunciation of the principle, is not bound by any particular application of that principle, made by it in an