The main legal point established in the judgment is that under S.56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, if the act agreed to be performed becomes impossible after the contract was entered into for no fault of the promisor, then the contract becomes void, but if the promisor was well aware of these contingencies at the time of entering into the contract, then liability for damages will arise.

1. The defendants in O.S. No. 374 of 1968 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Quilon are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The above suit was one for damages for breach of a contract. The appellants contend that the contract was not performed due to vis-major and hence the respondents-plaintiffs are not entitled for damages. Arjunan of Prakkulam the first plaintiff, who is none other than the Secretary of the Boat Passengers' Association, Quilon thought that it was only proper that for the marriage of his brother the second plaintiff, the bridegroom's party must be taken from Prakkulam to Mangad in the biggest boat belonging to the State Water Transport Department. Accordingly on 30121967 be made Ext. P2 application for the same to the Station Master, Quilon in the letter-head of his association itself. The boat was booked for 2111968. As made clear in Ext. P2 itself the boat was to leave Prakkulam Jetty with the marriage party at 10.30 A.M. On 1911968 the first plaintiff paid Rs. 100/- as advance and this is evidenced by Ext. P3 receipt issued by the Department. The Boat Passengers' Association Secretary and his 300 invitees reached Prakkulam Jetty in time to board the boat. Everything was ready but the boat did not make its appearance. From 10.30 A.M. to 12.30 P.M. for two long hours they were hoping against hopes that the boat will be there the next moment. The muhurtham was between 1 P.M. and 2 P.M. So they could not wait any further. All taxi cars available in the locality and in the neighbourhood were commissioned and all out attempt was made to take the party by road. The bridegroom and a few of the invitees were lucky to reach the bride's residence in time while the rest of the party could reach there only after the marriage. Going by the evidence adduced in this case the maximum passenger capacity of a boat belonging to the Water Transport Department is 120 or so. If that be so what would have happened if the boat came in time and the marriage party 300 strong went in that boat from Prakkulam to Mangad. This need only be left to one's own imagination.

2. According to the plaintiffs a considerable amount had to be spent because of the breach of contract committed by the defendants. Hence this suit was filed for damages and the return of Rs. 100/-paid as advance. The defendants in their written statement contended that the contract could not be performed because of events which could neither be anticipated nor be prevented and hence the defendants could not be made liable for the damages. The arrangement made was that Boat No. 10 which left Alleppey for Quilon at 10.30 P. M. the previous night was to run the special trip from Prakkulam to Mangad also after completing its Alleppey to Quilon service trip. As it developed engine trouble at Bhargavan's Jetty, Boat No. 12 was diverted to Quilon with instructions to fun the special trip in question also. It was to reach Quilon by 8.30 A.M. on 2111968 but it had also a break-down at Ayiramthengu. After repairs it could reach Quilon only at 12 noon. There was no spare boat at Quilon also.

3. The trial court came to the conclusion that there was absolutely nothing on record to show that the Department was negligent and hence the defendants could not be made liable for damages. The trial court dismissed the suit with an observation that the plaintiffs will be entitled for the return of the advance paid. The plaintiffs took the matter in appeal before the court below. The court below came to the conclusion that the contract did not become impossible of performance after it was made and that the defendants were not discharged from performance of the contract on account of the fact that the two boats one after the other had a break-down on the way. The court below found the defendants liable for the breach of contract and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to get damages of Rs. 500/-with interest thereon from 21-1-1968 at 6% per annum and also the return of the adv