Agreement to do impossible act
Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 deals with agreement to do impossible act. An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void. The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872.
An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void.
Contract to do an 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 do 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 promisee for any loss which such promisee sustains through the nonperformance 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.
Section 56, The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act 9 of 1872).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-54.pdf 2017-04-11 (not same-date ROPs order-53/55). Contract Act 56 frustration: a contract is discharged only when performance becomes impossible or unlawful, not merely more onerous. A rise in Indonesian coal prices / change of law that makes a power-purchase bargain costlier is not frustration; force majeure in the PPA is construed strictly. Map contract-act 56.
On this section: s.56 discharges a contract only when performance becomes impossible or unlawful, not merely more onerous. A change in Indonesian coal law / prices that made the PPA costlier was not frustration; force majeure in the PPA is construed strictly.
-
Govt. of Nct of Delhi vs Delhi Devt. Auth.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a development contract specifies that the project site is available for a particular use and payment is made on that representation, but subsequently supervening circumstances not contemplated by either party (such as undiscovered or later-asserted restrictions imposed by law or government agencies possessing concurrent or superior authority) make the fundamental purpose of the contract impossible or impracticable to achieve, the contract stands frustrated under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act. In such circumstances, the developer who has made deposits is entitled to refund of the entire amount with interest, even if the contract contains 'as is where is' clauses or terms making the developer responsible for obtaining clearances, as such clauses pertain to physical site conditions and standard regulatory clearances, not to supervening legal prohibitions unknown and uncontemplated by either party. The party initiating the contract (here, DDA) bears responsibility for ensuring the foundational basis (land use clarity and legal permissibility of project) is clear before engaging the developer.
On this section: Applied to determine that the development agreement was frustrated because performance became impossible due to supervening circumstance (Ridge protection prohibition) not contemplated by parties at time of contract. Court interpreted 'impossible' not as literal impossibility but as impracticability making contract useless for its purpose.
-
Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta vs New Era Fabrics P. Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an agreement for sale is contingent upon obtaining labour union consent as an essential condition, and the labour union refuses consent, the agreement stands frustrated and the seller is not bound to complete the sale. A buyer cannot unilaterally waive a condition that is for the mutual benefit of both parties, and such waiver cannot revive a terminated and frustrated contract. When a contingent condition cannot be fulfilled, the appropriate remedy is return of earnest money with stipulated interest, not specific performance.
On this section: Court applied doctrine of frustration of contract - when performance becomes impossible due to circumstances beyond parties' control, contract is discharged
-
H. P. A. International vs Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A contract for sale of property which is contingent on obtaining court sanction for transfer of interests of non-parties (reversioners) is an integrated, indivisible, and inseparable contract. When the essential contingency (court sanction) fails to materialize despite reasonable efforts by the vendor and despite the vendor's implied obligation to seek it within reasonable time, the contract becomes unenforceable. A buyer cannot invoke Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act to enforce partial relief (transfer of life interest alone) when: (a) the contract terms evince clear intention that parties contemplated all-or-nothing transaction; (b) explicit contractual clause (Clause 6) provides for cancellation if sanction not obtained; (c) no stipulation in contract provides for separate transfer of life interest if sanction for reversioners' interests fails; (d) the claim for partial relief is made after unreasonable delay and substantial change of circumstances; (e) reversioners, being non-parties to the contract, cannot be bound by doctrines of estoppel or trusts to give effect to a contract to which they never agreed; and (f) doing so would adversely affect the reversioners' independent interests and create future litigation. Courts cannot grant specific performance on terms not contemplated by the original contract parties, even if buyer attempts to waive the sanctioning clause.
On this section: Mentioned in context of whether non-grant of sanction amounted to impossibility of performance making contract frustrated.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Central Electricity Regulatory Commission [18.]( page-21-0) The Court delved into contractual jurisprudence on force majeure clauses and frustration of contracts. It held that Sections 32 and 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872[19]( page-21-1) govern the law on force majeure. When the contract contains an express or implied force majeure clause, it is governed under Chapter III of the Contract Act, specifically Section 32. In such cases, the 'doctrine of frustration' in Section 56 does not apply and the …
-
… Central Electricity Regulatory Commission [18.]( page-21-0) The Court delved into contractual jurisprudence on force majeure clauses and frustration of contracts. It held that Sections 32 and 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872[19]( page-21-1) govern the law on force majeure. When the contract contains an express or implied force majeure clause, it is governed under Chapter III of the Contract Act, specifically Section 32. In such cases, the 'doctrine of frustration' in Section 56 does not apply and the …
-
… In other words, under clause 23 rights and obligations of both the parties have been saved due to any change in the existing law or enactment of a new law or on the ground of new interpretation of the existing law. In my opinion, clause 23 must have been made a part of the agreement keeping in mind section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 sans any other intention." 19. The High Court, in its reasoning, suggests that Clause 23 is akin to a force majeure clause. We need to understand the utility and implications of a force majeure clause. Under Indian contract law, the consequences of a force majeure event …
Questions about Section 56
What have the courts held on Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act?
Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (11 Apr 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.56 discharges a contract only when performance becomes impossible or unlawful, not merely more onerous. A change in Indonesian coal law / prices that made the PPA costlier was not frustration; force majeure in the PPA is construed strictly. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2017.
How do I find court cases under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Contract Act 56, section 56 Contract Act, section 56 of the Indian Contract Act. People searching for it also type indian contract act 56. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (11 Apr 2017).
When did Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act come into force?
Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, commonly called frustration of contract, and cited as Contract Act 56, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 25 Apr 1872. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 73. Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract1822 words
- 23. What considerations and objects are lawful, and what not596 words
- 74. Compensation for breach of contract where penalty stipulated for577 words
- 28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceeding void512 words
- 25. Agreement without consideration, void, unless it is in writing and registered, or is a promise to compensate for something done, or is a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation law423 words
- 16. "Undue influence" defined397 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.