| Citation | AIR 1954 Ori 241 |
| Date of Judgement | 26th February,1954 |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Justice Narsimhan,Justice Mohanty |
| Plaintiff | Jagannath Patnaik |
| Defendant | Sri Pitambar Bhupati Harichandan Mohapatra |
| Relevant Section | Section 40 of The Indian Contract Act,1872 |
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
In this case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for breach of contract regarding the Sukinda estate in Cuttack district. The plaintiff, an experienced Revenue Officer, had previously served as the Manager of the estate. The defendant, the current proprietor, requested the plaintiff to take charge of the estate again, and a contract was formed.
ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT
– Alleged breach of contract by the defendant.
– Claim for damages by the plaintiff.
– Dispute over the terms and conditions of the contract regarding the Sukinda estate.
CONTENTION
Argument from Plaintiff’s Side
– The plaintiff contended that there was a valid contract between him and the defendant for him to take charge of the Sukinda estate.
– The plaintiff claimed that he had performed his obligations under the contract and was ready to fulfill his duties as the Manager of the estate.
– The plaintiff argued that the defendant breached the contract by not allowing him to take charge of the estate and thus sought damages for the breach.
Argument from Defendant’s Side
– The defendant contended that there was no valid contract between him and the plaintiff regarding the Sukinda estate.
– The defendant argued that he did not request the plaintiff to take charge of the estate and that there was no agreement between them.
– The defendant denied any breach of contract and disputed the plaintiff’s claim for damages.
RATIONALE & JUDGEMENT
The court in this case determined that the contract in question was of a nature where the performance depended on the personal conduct of the parties involved.
Section 40 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 states that if a contract is dependent on the skills or relationship of the parties, it stands dissolved upon the death of that party.
In this case, the relationship between the Dewan and the proprietor was considered close and confidential, and the death of either party would render the contract frustrated.
Both parties did not anticipate such an event, as they were not suffering from any ailments. Considering the personal nature of the obligations and the previous relationship between the plaintiff and K, it was concluded that the contract was dissolved upon the death of K.
CONCLUSION
It can be inferred that the contract in question was dissolved upon the death of one of the parties involved.
The nature of the relationship between the parties and the personal conduct required for the contract’s performance led to this conclusion.
REFERENCES
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/918106/
Case Analysis by Himadri Basu, LL.B Final Year Student from Gauhati University.
0 Comments