Wednesday, 22, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
BARE ACTS

Category SideBar

Section 56. Agreement to do impossible act


Category of Bare Act Name of the Act Year of Promulgation
Civil Laws Indian Contract Act, 1872 1872
Act Number Enactment Date Chapter Number
9 1872-04-25 4
Chapter Title Ministry Department
Of the performance of contracts which must be performed Ministry of Law and Justice, Legislative Department Department of Law and Legislative Affairs

An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void. Contract to do act afterwards becoming impossible or unlawful: 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 void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful.1

Compensation for loss through non-performance of act known to be impossible or unlawful: Where one person has promised to be something which he knew or, with reasonable diligence, might have known, and which the promisee did not know to be impossible or unlawful, such promisor must make compensation to such promise for any loss which such promisee sustains through the non-performance of the promise.

Illustrations

(a) A agrees with B to discover treasure by magic. The agreement is void.

(b) A and B contract to marry each other. Before the time fixed for the marriage, A goes mad. The contract becomes void.

(c) A contracts to marry B, being already married to C, and being forbidden by the law to which he is subject to practise polygamy. A must make compensation to B for the loss caused to her by the non-performance of his promise.

(d) A contracts to take in cargo for B at a foreign port. A’s Government afterwards declares war against the country in which the port is situated. The contract becomes void when war is declared.

(e) A contracts to act at a theatre for six months in consideration of a sum paid in advance by B. On several occasions A is too ill to act. The contract to act on those occasions becomes void.

COMMENTS

Contracting party must not be in default

In contracts in which the performance depends on the continued existence of a given person or thing, a condition is implied that the impossibility arising from the perishing of the person or thing shall excuse performance; Taylor v. Caldwel, 122 ER 30.

It is not permissible for the courts to travel outside the provisions of the section and import the principles of English law de hors the statutory provisions; Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co., AIR 1954 SC 44.

Impossibility may be in law or in fact

The doctrine of frustration is really an aspect or part of the law of discharge of contract by reason of supervening impossibility or illegality of the act agreed to be done and hence comes within the purview of section 56; Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur, AIR 1954 SC 44.

Scope and applicability

Section 56 lays a positive rule relating to frustration and does not leave the matter of frustration to the court to be determined. There can be no agreement on altered circumstances and it has also been held that if a consideration of the terms of the contract in the light of the circumstances when it was made shows that the parties never agreed to be bound in a fundamentally different situation which unexpectedly arises the contract ceases to bind at that point, not because the court in its discretion considers it just but on true construction it does not apply in that situation; Shyam Biri Works Pvt. Ltd. v. U.P. Forest Corporation, AIR 1990 SC 205.

——————————

1. See section 65, infra.

Help us improve! Please suggest corrections.
 

Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 
 

Related judgement on Section 56. Agreement to do impossible act

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA vs. ALIMENTA S.A., 2020 Latest Caselaw 322 SC Delhi Development Authority Vs. Kenneth Builders & Developers Ltd. & Ors. [June 29, 2016], 2016 Latest Caselaw 421 SC Sri Ram Builders Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. [April 25, 2014], 2014 Latest Caselaw 318 SC Mary Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. [OCTOBER 22, 2013], 2013 Latest Caselaw 740 SC Ganga Retreat & Towers Ltd. & ANR Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors [2003] INSC 681 (19 December 2003), 2003 Latest Caselaw 671 SC Govindbhai Gordhanbhai Patel & Ors Vs. Gulam Abbas Mulla Allibhai & Ors [1976] INSC 336 (17 December 1976), 1976 Latest Caselaw 336 SC Sushila Devi & ANR Vs. Hari Singh & Ors [1971] INSC 144 (5 May 1971), 1971 Latest Caselaw 144 SC Boothalinga Agencies Vs. V. T. C. Poriaswami Nadar [1968] INSC 117 (22 April 1968), 1968 Latest Caselaw 117 SC Raja Dhruv Dev Chand Vs. Harmohinder Singh & ANR [1968] INSC 53 (1 March 1968), 1968 Latest Caselaw 53 SC Silla Chandra Sekharam Vs. Ramchandra Sahu [1964] INSC 136 (24 April 1964), 1964 Latest Caselaw 136 SC M/S. Alopi Parshad & Sons, Ltd. Vs. The Union of India [1960] INSC 8 (20 January 1960), 1960 Latest Caselaw 8 SC Sales Tax Officer, Banaras & Ors Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Mukundlal Saraf [1958] INSC 81 (23 September 1958), 1958 Latest Caselaw 81 SC Bombay Dyeing &Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Vs. The State of Bombay & Ors [1957] INSC 115 (20 December 1957), 1957 Latest Caselaw 115 SC Satyabrata Ghose Vs. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. & ANR [1953] INSC 70 (16 November 1953), 1953 Latest Caselaw 70 SC Ganga Saran Vs. Ram Charan Ram Gopal [1951] INSC 51 (1 November 1951), 1951 Latest Caselaw 51 SC