Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The case of the appellant was that he could not commence the business due to hartal and strike during the first month of the contract period in the said fasli. Although the tree tax for 600 trees was paid in advance, the tapping of the 600 tress was stopped for 11/2 months under the express orders of the Government between 15-8-1956 and 3-9-1956. The contract therefore became frustrated due to that supervening impossibility. The defendant is not only bound to grant remission of that amount but is station for the loss sustained by the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 12,000/-

8. The defendant respondent filed a written statement and an additional written statement stating inter alia that the appellant entered into a contract with respect to Ramayampet group etc. for the year 1955-56 on a monthly rental of Rs. 4,145/- and deposited two months baitak and earnest money and offered security for the satisfaction of the Abkari arrears. It is not correct to state the appellant could not commence business due to Hartal and strike during the first month of the contract period. A ration of 7,400 tress was alloted for the contract. During that contract, the appellant tapped 4,080 trees out of which he paid tax and Haq-e-Malikana for 3,444 trees only. He did not pay anything for the remaining 636 trees. The appellant submitted an application dated 24-10- 1955 regarding the alleged strike and Hartal. That application was enquired and found to be false. During the month of October, 1955, the appellant tapped 2,000 trees. That shows that there was no strike and Hartal. The contention that from 15-8-1956 till the end of September, 1956 the tapping of 600 trees was stopped is baseless and false. The appellant illegally tapped 489 trees without payment of any tax. Instead of taking any action against the 1st plaintiff appellant, he was given a chance to deposit the taxes for the trees but he did not pay the same. Therefore, orders were issued to stop the tapping of the above trees. The appellant cannot claim any damage or compensation from the Government. There was no supervening impossibility.

12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended inter alia that the court below erred in not granting the relief with respect to those three items. The court below ought to have held that there was a hartal and strike and on account of the orders passed by the Government directing the stoppage of the tapping of the tress, the contract was frustrated and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay those amounts.

13. It is contended on the other hand by the learned Government Pleader that there is no hartal nor there is any strike. There was no supervening impossibility as to justify the contention of the appellant that there is a frustration of the contract and in the nature of things, having regard to the nature of the governmental contract involved in this case the plea as regards frustration under the Indian Contract Act cannot be applied to the facts of the case.

16. The appellant contends that the contract was frustrated and therefore, he is not liable to pay that amount. He claims on the other hand that he is entitled to remission and compensation but he reserved that right without claiming the same in the present suit. The case of the plaintiff was that he paid tree tax for 4,000 trees. He could not commence the business due to Hartal and strike during the first month after the commencement of the contract period in the said year and that although the tree tax for 600 trees was paid in advance the tapping of those 600 trees was stopped for 11/2 months between 15-8-1956 and 30- 9-1956 under express orders of the Government and that as such the contract above supervening impossibility.