G.D.Khosla, J.

1. The following two questions have been referred to this Full Bench:

(1) Whether the doctrine of frustration applies to a contract of lease of agricultural land?

(2) If the doctrine of frustration applies to such leases, on whom should the loss fall, i.e., on the lessor or the lessee?

2. The circumstances, which have given rise to this reference are briefly as follows: In the year 1947 Gurdarshan Singh minor acting through his guardian and mother, Balwant Kaur, executed a lease-deed in respect of some agricultural property in favour of Bishan Singh. The lease-deed was executed on 8-1-1947 and was in respect of property which is now part of Pakistan. The lease-deed made mention of the fact that possession of the land had been handed over to the lessee, though in point of fact the possession was with the lessors tenants and the crops of the tenants were at that time standing on the land. The terms of the lease were that it was to commence with effect from kharif 1947 and was to last for a period of five years ending with rabi 1952. The finding of the Court is that possession was not delivered to the lessee, and in the middle of 1947 partition of the country to