LexROZAN MIAN versus TAHERA BEGUM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.f--.. ROZANMIAN v. TAHERA BEGUM AND ORS. AUGUST 14, 2007 [H.K. SEMA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] Indian Contract Act, 1872; Section 56/Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949/Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981; Ss. 4, 5, 6, 7: Agreement for sale and purchase of Thika tenancy-One of the parties did not perform his part of contract, other party filing suit for specific A B c ! ·-- performance-Suit decreed by trial Court-Reversed by High Court-On appeal, Held: An agreement to do an impossible act is void-By virtue of 1981 Act, thika tenant became the thika tenant under the State-The suit for D specific performance of agreement for sale decreed after the 1981 Act came into force in terms thereof the agreement itself became void-Thus no right accrued to appellant in terms of the agreement-Under the circumstances, High Court rightly held that since the contract has become void appellant is entitled only to refund of consideration amount with interest and cost of the suit-No reason is found to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. E An agreement for sale and purchase ofthika tenancy was entered into between the parties under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949. The agreement was to sell structure without the land. The agreement having not been performed, a suit for specific performance of the contract has been filed F by the aggrieved party. However, during the pendency of the suit, West Bengal Act 37of1981 was promulgated. Section 5 of the Act provides that with effect from the date of commencement of this Act, lands along with the interest of the landlords therein shall vest in the State, free from all encumbrances. Sub- section (3) of Section 6 prohibits the transfer of the interests of thika t~nants and tenants of other lands holding directly under the State except the transfer G amongst the heirs and existing co-sharers-interest or to the prospective heirs, subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the 1981 Act. The trial Coun decreed the suit. On appeal, High Court upset the decree. Hence the present appeal. 1013 H A 1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R. The question which arose for determination in this appeal was as to whether the specific performance of the agreement for sale becomes impossible of performance by reason of promulgation of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 during the pendency of the suit. B .. Appellant contended that the right accrued to him by way of an c agreement dated 3.12.1973 under the 1949 Act still subsists and could not have been taken away by 1981 Act, as the application of the Act itself was not made retrospectively. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:l.l. Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that an agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void. A coritra~t 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 D act becomes impossible or unlawful. In the present case, by virtue ofThika Tenancy (Acquisition and Requisition) Act, 1981 the land under the landlord has been vested in the State and the thika tenant under the landlord becomes the thika tenant under the State. I Para 9) 11016-G) . 1.2. No such right as contended by the appellant was accrued under the . E Calc.utta Tenancy Act, as the suit for specific performance of agreement for sale was decreed only on 24.4.1990, by the Trial Court, after the agreement itself became void, by virtue of 1981 Act. jPara lOJ (1017-B-C) K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kera/a, .11994) 5 SCC 593; R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan, (1995] 2 SCC 630; Shyam Sunder v. Ram F Kumar, (2001] 8 SCC 24 and Narayan Chandra Ghosh v. Kanai/al Ghosh, (2006) l'scC'175, held inapplicable. 2. The High Court was of the view that after the promulgation of 1981 Act by reason of operation of law, the con'tract has become void, th.e plaintiff is entitled only to the refund of the consideration together with interest and G cost of the suit at the rate assessed by the High Court. No i-ea~on 'is found to interfere with the views of the High Court. H jParas 11and121 (1017-D-El CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 814 of 2005. ROZAN MIAN v. T AHERA BEGUM [H.K. SEMA, J.] 1015 ~ From the Final Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2003 of the High of A Ca
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.