Holding

The agreement became void as the transfer of thika tenancy was made impossible and unlawful by the 1981 Act, so specific performance could not be granted.

Summary

The plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement on 3 December 1973 for the sale of a structure under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, without the land. The plaintiff sued for specific performance on 7 February 1974; the trial court decreed in his favour on 24 April 1990. During the pendency of the suit, the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 came into force, vesting all such lands in the State and prohibiting any transfer of thika tenancy except among heirs, rendering the contemplated sale impossible and unlawful. The Supreme Court held that, under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the agreement became void because the act of transfer became impossible, and the overriding provision of Section 4 of the 1981 Act extinguished any prior rights. Consequently, the appellant was entitled only to a refund of the consideration with interest, and the High Court's decision was affirmed. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the specific performance of the agreement for sale became impossible and thus void due to the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981.
Whether rights accrued under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 survive the later 1981 Act.
Whether Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 renders the agreement void when the performance becomes unlawful.

Legislation cited

Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981s. 4, s. 5, s. 6, s. 7
Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949
Indian Contract Act, 1872s. 56

Subjects

specific performancecontract voidimpossibilityThika tenancyacquisition actoverriding legislationrefund of considerationIndian Contract ActWest Bengal law

Judgment

.f--..

ROZANMIAN A
v.
TAHERA BEGUM AND ORS.

AUGUST 14, 2007

[H.K. SEMA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] B

Indian Contract Act, 1872; Section 56/Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act,
1949/Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981; Ss. 4,
5, 6, 7:
c !

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
·-- 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
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R.

A 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
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
c
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. IPara 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.
jParas 11and121 (1017-D-El

CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 814 of 2005.

H
ROZAN MIAN v. TAHERA BEGUM [H.K. SEMA, J.] 1015
~
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2003 of the High of A
Calcutta in F.A. No. 103/1999.

S.B. Sanyal, Rauf Rahim, Md. Iqbal for the Appellant.

Jaideep Gupta, Tapash Ray, G.S. Chatterjee, Sachin Das, Alean Moohuri,
Satish Vig, Pijush K. Roy and G. Ramakrishna Prasad for the Respondents. B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
~ 1
,~ H.K. SEMA, J. (I) This appeal preferred by the plaintiff is directed
.....against the judgment and order dated 13.11.2003 passed by the High Court
in F.A.No.103 of 1988, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, by reversing the c
decree granted by the Trial Court.

(2) Briefly stated the facts are as follows:-

An agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant
on 3.12.1973 for sale and purchase of Thika Tenancy. The agreement having D
not been carried out, the plaintiff filed a suit on 7.2.1974 for specific performance
:: 4 of agreement for sale. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 24.4, 1990. However,
the High Court upset the decree and hence the present appeal. The undisputed
fact is that the aforesaid agreement was entered into between the parties while
the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 was in vogue. The agreement was to
sell structure without the land. There was no bar in transferring structure E
without the land under 1949 Act and a person purchasing the structure would
have become a Thika Tenant. However, during the pendency of the suit, West
Bengal Act 37 of 1981, The Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and
Regulation) Act, 1981 (hereinafter the 1981 Act) was promulgated.
F
'f
(3) 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.

(4) Sub-Section (3) of Section 6 prohibits the transfer of the interests
of thika tenants and tenants of other lands holding directly under the State G
except the transfer amongst the heirs and existing co-sharers-interest or to the
4'
prospective heirs, subject to the provisions of sub-section (I) of Section 7.
~
(5) By reason of sub-section (2) of Section 7 any transfer or agreement
for transfer, whether oral or in writing in contravention of the provisions of
sub-section (3) of Section 6 or sub-section (I) of Section 7 shall be void and H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R.
,4
A be of no effect whatsoever and the land and structure shall stand vested in
the State in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

(6) Section 4 of the Act has an overriding provision. It reads:-

"4. Act to override other laws.- The provisions of this Act shall have
B effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other
law for the time being in force or in any custom, usage or agreement
or in any decree or order of a court, tribunal or other authority."
~ ~
(7) In the background ofthe position of law, the question to be determined
in this appeal is as to whether the specific performance of the agreement for
c 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. As already noticed, the plaintiffs suit was filed on
7.2.1974 for specific performance of agreement for sale-dated 3.12.1973. The
suit was decreed on 24.4.1990. During the pendency of the suit, 1981 regulation
was promulgated. By virtue of Section 5, all lands and interests of the
D landlords vested with the Government. By virtue of sub-section (3) of Section
6 of the Act, transfer of thika tenancy is prohibited. By virtue of sub-section +-
<
(2) of Section 7, any transfer in contravention of sub-section (3) of Section
6 is void. Section 4 provides overriding effect on all laws including the
agreement or any decree or order of a court, tribunal or other authority.
E
(8) It is noticed that the 1981 Act has brought about drastic changes
in the concept ofThika tenancy. The superior interest of the landlord holding
under the State stands vested in the State by operation of law. The land
having been vested in the State and the Thika Tenant occupying the land
under the landlord became a Thika Tenant holding the Thika Tenancy directly
F under the State.
'Y

(9) Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (in short "the Act")
provides that an agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void. A contract
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
G void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. In the present case, by
virtue of 1981 Act, 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. ·-
(IO) Mr. S.B. Sanyal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant,
H
ROZAN MIAN v. TAHERA BEGUM [H.K. SEMA, J.] 1017

contended that the right accrued by an agreement dated 3.12.1973 under the A
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. This contention,
in our view, is thoroughly misplaced. We have already pointed out various
Sections of the Act, by which the agreement dated 3.12:1973 itself becomes
void. No such right as contended by learned counsel for the appellant was
accrued under the 1949 Act, as the suit for specific performance of agreement B
for sale was decreed only on 24.4. I990, by the Trial Court, after the agreement
itself became void, by virtue of I981 Act. In support of his contention Mr.
Sanyal referred to various decisions of this Court; K.S Paripoornan v. State
ofKera/a, [I 994] 5 SCC 593, R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandr~ekharan,
[I995] 2 SCC 630, Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, [200I] 8 SCC 24, Narayan C
Chandra Ghosh v. Kanai/al Ghosh, [2006] I SCC I 75. The aforesaid decisions
. are not at all relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal.

(I I) The High Court was of the view that after the promulgation of I 981
Act by reason of operation of Jaw, the contract has become void, the plaintiff
is entitled only to the refund of the consideration together with interest and D
cost of the suit at the rate assessed by the High Court.

(I2) We see no reason to interfere with the views of the High Court.
This appeal being devoid of merits is, accordingly, dismissed with no order
as to costs.
E
S.KS. Appeal dismissed