Back
High Court Of Calcutta
SUKUMAR CHAKRAVARTY, GOBINDA CHANDRA CHATTERJEE
PURNIMA RANI - Appellant
Versus
LAKSHMI BALA DASI - Respondent
A. F. A. D. 194 Of 1980
Decided On : 07/08/1987
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - CONTRACT FOR SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE - DOCTRINE OF FRUSTRATION - SECTION 56, INDIAN CONTRACT ACT - SECTION 12(3), SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff-appellant entered into an agreement for sale with the defendant-respondent to purchase a property. The agreement stipulated that the defendant would deliver vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the sale deed, and in default, would refund the earnest money with interest. The defendant failed to deliver vacant possession as she was unable to evict the tenants from the property. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the contract.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed specific performance of the contract in favor of the plaintiff. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed the suit, holding that the contract had become void due to the impossibility of performance of the defendant's obligation to deliver vacant possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the doctrine of frustration under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act applies to the case. 2. Whether Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act is applicable to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the doctrine of frustration under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act did not apply to the case. The court noted that the impossibility of performance of the defendant's obligation to deliver vacant possession was not caused by an event that was beyond the defendant's control. The court also noted that the defendant had not made any bona fide and effective attempt to evict the tenants and had not kept the plaintiff informed about her attempts and failures. 2. The court held that Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act was applicable to the case. The court noted that the defendant was unable to perform her whole part of the contract, but that the part which must be left unperformed did not form a considerable part of the whole and admitted of compensation in money. The court also noted that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract by paying the balance consideration money for the whole of the contract without any abatement, and that she had relinquished her claim for compensation and expressed her willingness to get possession of the property even with the tenants therein.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellate court's judgment and decree, and restored the trial court's judgment and decree with the modification that the plaintiff would get possession of the property with the tenants therein.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement and decree passed by Shri A. K. Chakravorty, the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Midnapore, in other Appeal No. 306 of 1977 reversing the judgement and decree passed by Shri M. N. Das, the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court, Midnapore in Other Suit No. 35 of 1975 and dismissing the suit.
( 2 ) PLAINTIFF Purnima Rani Dutta, filed the aforesaid suit against the defendant Lakshmi Bala Dasi for specific performance of the contract for sale of the suit property and for possession. It was the case of the plaintiff in brief that the suit property originally belonged to one Sushila Sundari Dasi who executed a deed of gift dated 29-6-51 in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit property. The defendant possessed the suit property since then and her name was duly recorded in the R. S. record of rights. The defendant entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 5,300/- and executed a registered deed of agreement on 24-11-72 on acceptance of Rs. 500/- as earnest money towards the consideration. It was agreed between the parties that within four months from the date of the execution of the deed of agreement the plaintiff would pay the balance consideration money of Rs. 4,800/- and the defendant would execute the sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. It was further stipulated in the agreement that the defendant within three months from the date of the execution of the deed of agreement would amicably evict the tenant in respect of the suit property and at the time of the execution of the sale deed, the defendant would give vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and that in default the defendant would refund the earnest money of Rs. 500/- with interest to the plaintiff. After the execution of the deed of agreement for sale the defendant handed over the title deeds to the plaintiff. The plaintiff tendered the balance consideration money in terms of the agreement and requested the defendant to execute the sale deed but the defendant on some pretext did not accept the balance consideration money from the plaintiff and did not execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement. The plaintiff was all along ready and willing to perform her part of the contract but the defendant refused to perform her part of the contract. The plaintiff accordingly brought the suit.
( 3 ) THE defendant contested the suit after filing the written statement. The defendant admitted in her written statement the execution of the deed of agreement for sale. the acceptance of the earnest money of Rs. 500/- and also the handing over of the title deeds to the plaintiff. The defendant, however, denied the plaintiff's allegation regarding the tender of the balance consideration money within the stipulated period, time being the essence of the contract. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff failed to perform her part of the contract in terms of the agreement and that it was not possible on the part of the defendant to give vacant possession of the suit property in terms of the agreement. The defendant accordingly expressed her willingness to refund the earnest money with interest but the plaintiff demanded Rs. 1,000/- which the defendant refused to pay. The plaintiff being enraged by defendant's such refusal, brought the suit. The plaintiff was therefore not entitled to the relief as prayed for.
( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge on consideration of the materials on the record found that the defendant executed the deed of agreement in favour of the plaintiff for sale of the suit property in terms of the agreement for a consideration of Rs. 5,300/- and that the defendant accepted the earnest money of Rs. 500/ -. The learned Subordinate Judge also found that the time was not the essence of the contract and that the plaintiff within the stipulated period requested the d
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
