The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Z. A. and L. R. Act on the agreement to re-sell land, the doctrine of frustration, and the liability for compensation in case of breach of contract.

S. S. DHAVAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS order will be deemed to be a continuation of my order dated 18th September 1961 and the two orders together will constitute the judgment in this appeal. The facts which have given rise to this second appeal have been detailed in the previous order, but a very brief resume will not be out of place. In 1936 the ancestors of the plaintiffs-appellants entered into a transaction of sale and agreement to re-sell under two separate registered documents. By the first these ancestors sold certain plots of land to the four vendees for a sum of Rs. 2500/- and by the second the vendees agreed to reconvey the same property to the vendors if the sale pries was paid bach within ten years. The property was subject to pre-emption and one Misri Lal asserted this right successfully in the law courts. He stepped into the position of the vendors and obtained possession. Subsequently he transferred about half of the land to two persons, Shishpal Singh and Bhura Singh who are co-defendants in the suit, in 1946 the agreement of reconveyance was enforced by the present plaintiffs who are the descendants of the original vendors. On refusal, they filed the present suit for specific performance on 18th January 1948. The defendants were the original party to the agreement of 1936, the preemptor-Misri Lal, and his transferee Shishpal singh and Bhura Singh.

( 2 ) THE suit was contested and a number of pleas were raised in defence. Both the Courts below upheld them and dismissed the suit and the plaintiffs came to this Court in second appeal.

( 3 ) AFTER a lengthy hearing I reversed the findings of the Court below and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs appeal must be allowed.

( 4 ) AS regards the relief to which the plaintiffs are entitled, it is common ground that the position of the parties has been altered to some extent by the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act under which the Zamindari property vested in the State. It was conceded by the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellants that it is no longer possible for the defendants to reconvey the property which has vested in the State and the agreement of re-sale has to this extent become impossible of performance. But the plaintiffs pointed out that some of the plots were the khudkasht or grove land of the preemptor and were subsequently settled under Section 18 of the z. A. and L. R. Act either with him or with the transferees Shishpal Singh and Bhura Singh. The plaintiffs submitted that the agreement of resale could be enforced as regards these plots. This contention was accepted and art issue was remitted to the Court below for a finding whether any part of the land which was agreed to be reconveyed under the agreement of 1936 was settled with Misri Lal under Section 18 of the Z. A. and L. . R Act or with Shishpai Singh or Bhura singh as the Bhumidhar of that land. The learned Judge after hearing the parties and recording their evidence came to the conclusion that tour plots namely, 388/1, 413/1, 418/2, and 429/2 were in the personal cultivation of Misri Lal on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting and he became the Bhumidhar of these plots under Section 18. He also found that none of the plots included in the land were settled with Bhura Singh and Shishpai Singh under Section 18.

( 5 ) THE parties have filed their objections against these findings, In addition, the defendants nave filed an application for a review of my findings in the previous order dated 18th September, 1961 on the ground that the foundation of the decision has been shattered by a recent decision of the supreme Court in Sheo Ambar Singh v. Allhabad Bank, 1961 All LJ 716 : (AIR 1961 SC 1790), reversing the decision of the full Bench of this Court in Sheo Ambar Singh v. Allahabad Bank ltd. , 1959 All LJ 229 : (AIR 1959 All 179) (FB ). Before considering the effect of the findings of the lower Court on remand, I shall deal with the prayer for review. On the earlier occasion It wa