JUDGMENT

S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal from the concurrent decisions of the courts below dismissing his suit for specific performance of an agreement for reconveyance of the two plots of land. It raises several important questions of law. The facts are these. The plaintiffs, on 14th September 1954 sold the two plots to the respondents for a sum of Rs. 2,500/-, and there was a simultaneous agreement that the defendants would re-convey the land to the plaintiffs if the latter were willing to pay Rs. 2,500/- for it. Soon after this agreement, the village in which the land is situate came under consolidation and the two plots in dispute were allotted to a third person as a part of his consolidated holding. It is common ground that during the entire proceedings for consolidation, the plaintiff did not exercise their option to re-purchase the land. On 3rd February, 1960 after the consolidation was complete and the aforesaid third person had taken possession of the land, the plaintiffs exercised their option and served notice on the defendant-respondents to re-convey the land to them at the agreed price. The defendants took no notice of this demand and the plaintiffs filed the present suit for specific performance. The defendants resisted it and raised several pleas in defence. They contended that they were not longer owners of the plot in dispute and it was impossible for them to perform the contract. They also pleaded that the agreement was void under Sec. 168-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act which in effect provides that a transfer of any fragment situate in a consolidated area in void unless the transferee has a plot contiguous to the fragment or unless the whole of the plot which the fragment is a part is transferred. They also took a number of other pleas-as for example, that the agreement to re-convey the land was obtained by undue influence, but it is not necessary to mention them as they were rejected by both the courts below and not pressed in this appeal.

2. The trial court held that there was an agreement to re-convey the land but it had become void under Sec. 168-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and could not be enforced. It dismissed the suit with costs. The appellate court confirmed this decision and the plaintiffs have come here in second appeal.

3. Mr. Hari Krishna Agarwal, who holds the brief of Mr. Shanti Bhushan argued this appeal with great tenacity, contended that the view of the courts below that the agreement to re-convey was hit by Sec. 168-A is erroneous. Learned counsel pointed out that this section was enacted by an amending Act which contain a saving section which exempted all obligations already incurred from the operation of Sec. 168-A.

4. Sec. 168-A was included by the U.P. Land Reforms Amendment Act. XVIII of 1956 and runs thus:

"Transfer of fragments. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any law for the time being in force, no person shall transfer whether by sale, gift or exchange any fragment situate in a consolidated area except where the transfer is not in favour or a tenure-holder who has a plot contiguous to the fragment or where the transfer is not is favour of any such tenure-holder the whole of the plot to which the fragment pertains is thereby transferred. (2) The transfer of any land contrary to the provisions of sub-Sec. (1) shall be void. (3) When a bhumidhar has made any transfer in contravention of the provisions of sub-Sec. (1) the provisions of Secs. 167 and 168 shall mutatis mutandis apply."

5. Sec. 23 of the amending Act provided : "23-Saving - (i) Any amendment made by this Act shall not affect the validity, invalidity, effect, or consequences of anything already done or suffered or any right, title or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred or any jurisdiction already exercised, and any proceeding instituted or commenced before any court or authority prior to the commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding any amendme