Case: Sushila Devi And Anr Vs. Hari Singh And Ors

contention of the plaintiffs that the agreement to lease was frustrated. In appeal a Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir agreed with the trial Court that the contract referred to in the plaint was frustrated because of the supervening circumstances. It opined that the doctrine of frustration applied to leases as well. It further held that under the contract Vidya Wati was expected to deliver actual possession of the property to the plaintiffs and that she had neither delivered physical nor even symbolic possession of the same to the plaintiffs. In the result it affirmed the decision of the trial Court. Thereafter this appeal has been brought by special leave. During the pendency of the appeal to the High Court Vidyawati died and the present appellants were brought on record as her legal representatives.7. The only question that falls for decision in this appeal is whether the contract referred to in the plaint has become void in view of the circumstances established. In other words had the performance of the contract become impossible in view of the prolonged and widespread communal troubles and the long drawn out tension that prevailed between India and Pakistan. The law of frustration is embodied in S. 56 of the Contract Act. That section to the extent material for our present purpose reads :"A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promiser could not prevent unlawful becomes void when the act becomes imposib1e or unlawful."8. The conclusion of the Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court that S. 56 of the Contract Act applies to leased as well cannot be accepted as correct Section 56 applies only to contract. Once a valid lease comes into existence the agreement to lease disappears and its place is taken by the lease. It becomes a completed conveyance under which the lessee gets an interest in the property. There is a clear distinction between a completed conveyance and an executory contract. Events which discharge a contract do not invalidate a concluded transfer see Raja Dhruv Dev Chand v. Harmohinder Singh, (1968) 3 SCR 339 = (AIR 1968 SC. 1024 ). In view of that decision the view taken by some of the High Court that S. 56 of the Contract Act applies to leases cannot be accepted as correct. Further the English decisions bearing on the point can have no further relevance.9. But in this case, there was no lease. There was only an agreement to lease. As seen earlier, the agreement between the parties was that the properties in question should be leased to the plaintiffs for a period of three years. Such a lease could not have been validly made except under a registered instrument. As seen earlier the contract between the parties provided that the lease deed should be registered within 15 days from the date of the acceptance of the tender. For one reason or the other, the contemplated lease deed was neither executed nor registered. Therefore we have before us only an agreement to lease and not a lease. Such an agreement comes within the scope of S.56 of the Contract Act.10. We agree with the trial Court that under the terms of agreement Vidya Wati was not expected to deliver actual possession of the properties sought to be leased. The contract between the parties provided that:"The lessee shall be personally responsible to get the possession of the lands under Patta after the registration of lease deed."11. In our opinion on this point the conclusion of the appellate Court is not sustainable. But in fact, as found by the trial Court as well as by the appellate Court, it was impossible for the plaintiffs to even get into Pakistan. Both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have found that because of the prevailing circumstances, it was impossible for the plaintiffs to either take possession of the properties intended to be leased or even to collect rent from the cultivators. For that situation the plaintiffs were not responsible in any manner. As observed by this Court in Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co, 1954 SCR 310 = (AIR 1954 SC 44 ) the doctrine of frustration is really an aspect or part of the law of discharge of contract by reason of supervening impossibility or illegality of the act agreed to be done and hence comes within the purview of S. 56 of the Indian Contract Act. The view that S. 56 applies only to cases of physical impossibility and that where this section is not applicable recourse can be had to the principles of English law on the subject of frustration is not correct. Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act lays down a rule of positive law and does not leave the matter to be determined according to the intention of the parties. The impossibility contemplated by S. 56 of the Contract Act is not confined to something which is not humanly possible. If the performance of a contract becomes impracticable or useless having regard to the object and purpose the parties had in view then it must be held that the performance of the contract has become impossible. But the supervening events should take away the basis of the contract and it should be of such a character that it strikes at the root of the contract.12. From the facts found in this case it is clear that the plaintiffs sought to take on lease the properties in question with a view to enjoy those properties either by personally cultivating them or by sub-leasing them to others. That object became impossible because of the supervening events. Further the terms of the agreement between the parties relating to taking possession of the properties also became impossible of performance. Therefore we agree with the trial Court as well as the appellate Court that the contract had become impossible of performance.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]8. The conclusion of the Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court that S. 56 of the Contract Act applies to leased as well cannot be accepted as correct Section 56 applies only to contract. Once a valid lease comes into existence the agreement to lease disappears and its place is taken by the lease. It becomes a completed conveyance under which the lessee gets an interest in the property. There is a clear distinction between a completed conveyance and an executory contract. Events which discharge a contract do not invalidate a concluded transfer see Raja Dhruv Dev Chand v. Harmohinder Singh, (1968) 3 SCR 339  = (AIR 1968 SC. 1024 ). In view of that decision the view taken by some of the High Court that S. 56 of the Contract Act applies to leases cannot be accepted as correct. Further the English decisions bearing on the point can have no further relevance.9. But in this case, there was no lease. There was only an agreement to lease. As seen earlier, the agreement between the parties was that the properties in question should be leased to the plaintiffs for a period of three years. Such a lease could not have been validly made except under a registered instrument. As seen earlier the contract between the parties provided that the lease deed should be registered within 15 days from the date of the acceptance of the tender. For one reason or the other, the contemplated lease deed was neither executed nor registered. Therefore we have before us only an agreement to lease and not a lease. Such an agreement comes within the scope of S.56 of the Contract Act.10. We agree with the trial Court that under the terms of agreement Vidya Wati was not expected to deliver actual possession of the properties sought to be leased. The contract between the parties providedlessee shall be personally responsible to get the possession of the lands under Patta after the registration of lease deed.In our opinion on this point the conclusion of the appellate Court is not sustainable. But in fact, as found by the trial Court as well as by the appellate Court, it was impossible for the plaintiffs to even get into Pakistan. Both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have found that because of the prevailing circumstances, it was impossible for the plaintiffs to either take possession of the properties intended to be leased or even to collect rent from the cultivators. For that situation the plaintiffs were not responsible in any manner. As observed by this Court in Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co, 1954 SCR 310  = (AIR 1954 SC 44 ) the doctrine of frustration is really an aspect or part of the law of discharge of contract by reason of supervening impossibility or illegality of the act agreed to be done and hence comes within the purview of S. 56 of the Indian Contract Act. The view that S. 56 applies only to cases of physical impossibility and that where this section is not applicable recourse can be had to the principles of English law on the subject of frustration is not correct. Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act lays down a rule of positive law and does not leave the matter to be determined according to the intention of the parties. The impossibility contemplated by S. 56 of the Contract Act is not confined to something which is not humanly possible. If the performance of a contract becomes impracticable or useless having regard to the object and purpose the parties had in view then it must be held that the performance of the contract has become impossible. But the supervening events should take away the basis of the contract and it should be of such a character that it strikes at the root of the contract.12. From the facts found in this case it is clear that the plaintiffs sought to take on lease the properties in question with a view to enjoy those properties either by personally cultivating them or by sub-leasing them to others. That object became impossible because of the supervening events. Further the terms of the agreement between the parties relating to taking possession of the properties also became impossible of performance. Therefore we agree with the trial Court as well as the appellate Court that the contract had become impossible of performance.