Frustration and land transfer permission: technical refusal did not void the agreement or bar fresh statutory approval.
A contract for sale is not frustrated under section 56 of the Indian Contract Act merely because the first permission was refused on a technical ground; frustration requires a supervening event that makes performance legally or practically impossible in substance. The refusal here did not strike at the foundation of the bargain and left open a fresh request for permission after obtaining the required certificate. The later administrative authority remained competent to grant the certificate and permission under section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and Rule 36(f), so the subsequent permission was valid.
Issues: (i) whether refusal of permission by the Prant Officer rendered the agreement for sale impossible of performance and void under section 56 of the Indian Contract Act; (ii) whether, after that refusal, the Additional Collector was incompetent to grant permission and the requisite certificate under section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and Rule 36(f) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1956.
Issue (i): whether refusal of permission by the Prant Officer rendered the agreement for sale impossible of performance and void under section 56 of the Indian Contract Act.
Analysis: The contract did not contain any term making it incapable of performance on refusal of the first permission. Section 56 applies only where a supervening event makes performance impossible or impracticable in the legal sense. The refusal here was only on a technical ground, did not strike at the foundation of the bargain, and did not bar a fresh request for permission after obtaining the required certificate.
Conclusion: The agreement did not become void under section 56 of the Indian Contract Act.
Issue (ii): whether, after that refusal, the Additional Collector was incompetent to grant permission and the requisite certificate under section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and Rule 36(f) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1956.
Analysis: The power exercised under the proviso to section 63 is administrative, not judicial or quasi-judicial. The earlier refusal by the Prant Officer was not on merits but on a formal defect. Such an administrative refusal did not create any bar to a subsequent application or deprive the Collector or authorised officer of power to consider the matter afresh and grant permission on compliance with Rule 36(f).
Conclusion: The Additional Collector was competent to grant the certificate and permission notwithstanding the earlier refusal.
Final Conclusion: The contract was not frustrated, the later permission was validly granted, and the respondents' suit for declaration and possession could not be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A contract is discharged by frustration only when a supervening event renders performance legally or practically impossible in the substantive sense, and an earlier administrative refusal on a technical ground does not bar a fresh application or oust the statutory authority's power to grant permission.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
