Ashutosh Rajput | Hidayatullah National Law University | 26th May 2020
Sushila Devi & Anr. v. Hari Singh & Ors. [1971 AIR 1756]
Facts:
Vidya Wati was the owner of the Kotli Delbagh Rai village in Tehsil Gujramwalla. She published a notice calling for tenders for lease of the land for a period of 3 years i.e. from 1947 to 1950. The respondent’s tender was accepted and an earnest money of rupees 1,000 was deposited. The lease deed was neither executed nor registered. Later on, Tehsil Gujramwalla became a part of Pakistan due to the partition of India on August 15, 1947. And because of the communal trouble prevalent at that time, it was impossible for the respondents to go to the Gujramwalla either to cultivate the lands or to collect the rent. Therefore, the respondent claimed refund for rupees 36,000 wherein 2,000 being for damage and rupees 34,000 as refund from Vidya Wati. She declined to comply with the demand. Hence, the respondents filed the suit before the trial court initially. Wherein, Vidya Wati contended that she had done what the contract deemed for. She was only required to give possession. She also contended that the doctrine of frustration is not applicable under such circumstances and the suit was barred by the limitation. The plaintiff’s contention was rejected by the trial court and the same observation of the trial court was upheld by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir on the ground that she had not given the actual possession of the property. Therefore, the appeal was brought by the defendants before the Supreme Court and in the meantime, Vidya Wati died so she was represented by her legal representatives.
Issue:
Whether the contract was frustrated and became void?
Judgment:
Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 does not undertake lease and will be incorrect if taken leases under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Supreme Court cited Raja Dhruv Dev Chand v. Harmohinder Singh[1]and observed that in this case there was no lease and there was only agreement of lease. And as per the facts it is impossible for the appellants to take possession of the properties considering such prevalent conditions. The curt further observed that the physical impossibility will come under the ambit of section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 by relying on Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. & Anr. Hence, the court dismissed the appeal and directed the parties to bear their own cost.
[1] [1954] SCR 310
Leave a Reply