MUGNEERAM BANGUR AND CO Vs. GURBACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point which arises in this appeal is whether a contract for sale of land stood discharged and came to an end by reason of certain intervening or supervening circumstances, to which due reference will be made in the course of this judgment. The point was, even lately, not free from doubt and it was beset with considerable difficulties, but a recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court has clarified the position and considerably lightened our task.

(2.) The law to be considered is the law of frustration of contract as applicable to this country. The matter appears to be concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Satyabrate Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co.. where under apparently similar circumstances, their Lordships of the Supreme Court rejected the plea of frustration of the contract, but, as the said case has been sought to be distinguished on facts and a seemingly new question has also been raised for our consideration and as it his been further argued that this Court, though bound by the Supreme Court's statement or enunciation of the principle, is not bound by any particular application of that principle, made by it in any particular case, and may make a different application of that principle even to the similar facts before it and reach a different conclusion, it is necessary to examine the whole position and record our views on the same in some detail.

(3.) The controversy, as we have said above, centres round the question whether the contract in suit came to an end by frustration due to the intervening circumstances, to which we shall presently refer. The material facts lie within a short compass and they stand as follows: The appellant Company, which was the defendant in the Court below, was the owner of a large tract of land, situate in the vicinity of the Dhakuria Lakes, which they intended to develop and sell by plots under their Lake Colony Scheme No. 1. In respect of two of these plots, plots Nos. 245 and 246, comprising an area of 10 cottahs, the Company entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiff respondent Gurbachan Singh and received an earnest money of Rs. 202/- in pursuance & in terms thereof. By that agreement, the Company undertook to construct the roads etc. for appropriate enjoyment of the above plots as a building site. The terms of the agreement appear sufficiently from the two documents, the letter of agreement, more correctly, the letter of offer, Ext. A, and the earnest money receipt (which is really the acceptance) Ext. 1, which may be set out as follows: Ext. A: Letter of agreement by Gurbachan Singh to Mugneeram Bangur and Co.