Ratan Properties Pvt. Ltd. is developing a residential site in Jodhpur. Aryansh purchases a plot of 5000 square feet. Before the plot could be developed, war breaks out and the residential site is requisitioned by Govern

CS Executive · Economic, Business and Commercial Laws · PYQS · December 2023
Ratan Properties Pvt. Ltd. is developing a residential site in Jodhpur. Aryansh purchases a plot of 5000 square feet. Before the plot could be developed, war breaks out and the residential site is requisitioned by Government of India for war purposes for temporary period. Ratan Properties Pvt. Ltd, claims impossibility to deliver plot to Aryansh. Examine the claim under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Answer & Explanation:

The problem is based on section 56 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 relating to doctrine of impossibility. A contract which is entered into to perform something that is clearly impossible is void. Para 2 of Section 56 provides that a contract to do an act, which after the contract is made, becomes impossible or by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. In Satyabarta Ghose v Mugneeram Bangur & Co. AIR 1954 SC 44 the Supreme Court interpreted the term impossible appearing in second paragraph of section 56. The Court observed that the word 'impossible' has not been used here in the sense of physical or literal impossibility: The performance of an act may not be literally impossible but it may be impracticable and useless from the point of view of the object and, purpose which the parties had in view; and if an untoward event or change of circumstances totally upsets the very foundation upon which the parties rested their bargain; it can very well be said the promisor found it impossible to do the act which he promised to do. In this case, A undertook to sell a plot of land to B but before the plot could be developed, war broke out and the land was, temporarily requisitioned by the Government. A offered to return earnest money to B in cancellation of contract. B did not accept and sued A for specific performance. A pleaded discharge by frustration. The Court held that Section 56 on the ground that the requisition was of temporary in nature and there was no time limit within which A was obliged to perform the contract. The impossibility was not of such a nature which would strike at the root of the contract. The problem is based on the case hence impossibility cannot be pleaded. The claim of Ratan Properties Pvt. Ltd. is invalid.

Topics: Indian Contract Act, 1872

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic