Defendants are the appellants. The respondent/plaintiff in auction obtained the fishing rights in the pond belonging to the appellants for the year 1991-1992. He paid a sum of Rs.32,927. According to him, because of the failure of rains, there was no water in the pond. The plaintiff did not receive the order confirming the auction and therefore, he asked for refund of auction amount. Since the appellants refused to refund the amount, suit was filed. The trial Court decreed the suit and the appellate Court confirmed it. Against that, the present second appeal has been filed.

2. The following substantial questions of law has been raised:

"Whether in law, are not the Courts below wrong in overlooking that the respondent having accepted the conditions in auction is estopped from questioning the same."

3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the contract given to the respondent was a lease and when there is demise of property in praesenti, there is no frustration of contract as per Sec.56 of the Contract Act. The only right which the respondent had was under Sec.108(e) of Transfer of Property Act. To support his case that the contract was not a licence but a le