GOVINDBHAI GORDHANBHAI PATEL & ORS. versus GULAM ABBAS MULLA ALLIBHAI & ORS.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 511 · Decided: 17-12-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY, M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG, JASWANT SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

j 
511 
GOVINDBHAI GORDHANBHAI PATEL & ORS. 
v. 
GULAM ABBAS MULLA ALLIBHAI & ORS. 
December 17, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Indian 
Comract Act, 1872, s. 56, doctrine of frustration, when 
appli-
cable. 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricul~ural Lands Act, 1948, s. 63(1), Permission for 
sale, whether administrative, iudicial or quasi-iudicial act. 
Civil Procedure Code, doctrine of res judicata, whether applicable to pro-
ceeding dismissed for formal. defect-Wnet!ter debars authority exercising con-
C 
current iurisdiction from emertajtJing subsequellt ·proceeding~ for same ~elief. 
The respondents agreed to sell their agricultural land to the appellants. The 
title deeds and possession of the land were given to the appellants and both 
pa.rties jointly applied to the District Deputy Collector, Thana Prant, under 
s. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, seeking per· 
mission for the sale. 
The permission was refused on the ground that 
the 
intending purchaser had failed to obtain a certificate from the Collector under 
Rule 36(f) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules 1956, that 
D• 
he intended to take to the profession of agriculture and was capable of cultivat-
ing land personally. 
The appellants thereafter obtained the requisite sanction 
from the Additional Collector, Thana, in spire of the respondents' non-coopera-
tion. A suit by the respondents for declaring the agreement void in law was 
decreed by the Trial Court. In appeal, the High Court opined that the Prant 
Officer's refusal to permit the sale had rendered the agreement impossible of 
performance. 
Allowing the appeal, l'he Court. 
HELD : (1) The parties are governed by s. 56 of the Contract Act accord-
ing to which a contract becomes void only if something supervenes after its 
execution which renders it impracticable or impossible of performance. The 
ordeo; of the Prant Officer was raot of such a catastrophic character. [519A-C] 
Satyabrata Chose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. & Anr. [~I SCR 310; Smt. 
Sushi/a Devi & A11r. v. Hari Singh & Ors. [1971] 2 S.C.C. 288 and Ttimp/in 
Steams/1ip Co. Ltd v. Anglo-Mexican Petroleum products Co. Ltd. [1916] 2 
A.C. 397, 403, applied. 
Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Ltd. v. Imperial Smelting Corporation 
Ltd. [1942] A.C. 154 at 168, referred to. 
(2) The function which the Collector or the authorised officer discharg~ 
under the proviso to s. 63 ( 1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Landi 
Act is o.n administrative one and not judicial or quasi-judicial. 
[519G-H] 
Tire Stare of Madras v. C. P. Saratlry & Anr. AIR 1953 S.C. 53; A. K. 
Bhaskar v. Advocate General AIR 1962 Kerala 90; Shantanand v. 
Advocate 
General AIR 1955 All. 372; Shrimali Lal v. Advocate General AIR 1955 Raj. 166 
and Abdul Kasim v. Md. Dawood AIR 1961 Mad. 242. similarity marked. 
(3) The dismissal of a proceeding by an authority not on merits but merely 
on account of a formal defect will not attract the applicability of the general 
principles of res iudicata and will not debar the authority exercising concurrent 
jurisdiction from entertaining the .wb~eqllent proceedings for the same 
relief 
and passing proper orders on merits. 
[520 F-H] 
Putali Mehati v. Tulia I.LR. 3 Born. 223 and Pethaparumal v. 
Murugandl 
18 Mad. 466, applied. 
512 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1977} 2 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1860 of 1968. 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and decree dated the 
29th January, 1968, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 472/ 
,60). 
R. P. Bhatt, B. R. Agarwala and Janendra Lal, for the appellants. 
B 
Sachin Chaudhary, Prakash Mehta, Ravinder Narain and K. L. 
c 
D 
F 
F 
G 
H 
John of M/s. !. B .. Dadachanji & Co. for the respoodents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
J ASW ANT SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave which is directed 
against the judgment and decree dated January 29, 1968, of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay involves a question of the applicability 
or otherwise of the doctrine of frustration embodied in section 56 of 
the Contract Act which to use the words of Viscount Maugham in 
Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Limited v. Imperial SmeltinR Cor-
poration Ltd.(') "is only a special case of the discharge of contract 
by an impossibility of performance arising after the contract was made" 
or to use the language of Mukherjea, J. in Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugnee-
ram Bangur & Co. & Anr.( 2 ) "is real

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.