Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Further, the defendants did not take the plea of impossibility of performance in clear terms in the written statement; nor did they put forth their case on the principle of frustration before the learned Subordinate Judge. We have seen the written statement and it is impossible for us to say that the defendants took his defence of impossibility of performance of contract in the written statement. On perusing the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge carefully we are also convinced that the Advocate for the defendants in the lower Court did not at all advance his arguments, on the lines now raised by Mr. Ramamurthi, that is, impossibility of performance or in other words, the special defence of frustration of contract, not pleaded by a party, the opposite party gets no opportunity to show that frustration was due to the neglect or default of the party pleading the defence. The plea of impossibility of performance is one form of discharge of contract as pleaded by Mr. Ramamurthi. If the defendants really wanted to plead that the contract was discharged on the principle of frustration, they should have stated so in their written statement. As pointed in Mulla's Civil Procedure Code (Twelfth edition, Volume I), page 582:

. . . where he (the defendant) alleges that he is released from or exonerated and discharged from, the performance of his contract, he must in his written statement give sufficient information to his opponent as to how and when he was so released or discharged.

12. In the first place, in the present case, the facts are not set out clearly in the written statement to make out a case of frustration. Secondly, the term ' frustration ' or impossibility of performance, is nowhere used in the written statement. Thirdly, it has not been argued in the Court below. If the plea of frustration as discharging a contract was specifically pleaded in the written statement, the plaintiff would have taken the opportunity to show that it is not a case of frustration or impossibility of performance of the contract. He could have proved that the doctrine of frustration of the contract fails because the supervening event which is said to have made the performance of the contract impossible was within the contemplation of the members and was before their eyes. As the defendants have not taken this definite plea of impossibility of performance, we propose not to take seriously this argument advanced by Mr. Ramamurthi. We will, however, consider whether there was impossibility of performance or whether the doctrine of frustration of contract can be applied in the instant case.

Therefore, we hold that there cannot be impossibility of performance or frustration to this contract.

19. It is also settled that the theory of frustration or impossibility of performance of a contract cannot be applied to cases of commercial transactions. In other words, the impossibility referred to in Section 56 is not commercial impossibility. In his treatise on Impossibility of Performance L.R. (1917) A.C. 495, 510, (1941 edition) Roy Grenville Mc. Elroy states at page 194, under the heading ' Commercial Impossibility is not frustration ':

In Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co. and Anr. (1954) S.C.J 1 : (1954) 1 M.L.J. 41 : (1954) S.C.R. 310, though their Lordships-did not specifically say that frustration will not be applicable to a case of lease, they observed that (at page 325):
The rule of frustration can only put an end to purely contractual obligations, but it cannot destroy an estate in land which has already accrued in favour of a contracting party.

26. Thus though the law is not settled, the general trend of opinion both in the. House of Lords and in our Courts in India seems to be that the doctrine of frustration, or impossibility of performance will not be applicable to cases of agricultural leases. On the facts in this case we hold that the defendants are not entitled to claim any remission as the lease is an unconditional lease. The defendants will not be permitted to raise the question of impossibility of performance as they did not specifically plead it in their written statement, and even assuming that they had raised the defence there is no impossibility of performance in this case as the relationship of landlord and tenant continued as the substance of the contract has not disappeared and the basis of the contract has not been demolished. Further as stated already, the theory of frustration cannot be applied to a commercial adventure, and being an agricultural lease, there is no question of impossibility of performance or frustration. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to collect the rent as per the agreement, Exhibit A-1 in the case. We accordingly grant a decree for the plaintiff for the disallowed portion of the claim.