Indian Contract Act — Section 56
Agreement to do impossible act.—An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void.
56. Agreement to do impossible act.—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 non- performance of the promise.
(a) A agrees with B to discover treasure by magic. The agreement is void.
Illustrations
(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.
Follow cited cases · Browse courts and years · Research topics
Judgments citing Section 56
- GURVINDER SINGH TOOR v. ROHIT MALHOTRA
- Delhi High Court · 2026
- M/S ST. THOMAS SCHOOL v. M/S MEGALOGIX
- Manoj Kumar v. Nita Bharti
- Rahee - GPT (JV) & Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors.
- TDI INTERNATIONAL INDIA LTD v. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION
- (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code v. State of Orissa represented
- Owners and Parties interested in the Motor Tug (MT) INTAN T 3501 v. Nila Logistics LLPRep.by its Managing Director Mr.Shanmugaraj 5/582/26
- UNION OF INDIA v. CAPTAIN VIDYA SAGAR.
- M/s. Sukriti Pebbles v. The State of West Bengal and Others
- R.SubramanianS/o. G.S.Ramaswami... v. IndusInd Bank Ltd.
- Jharkhand High Court · 2026
- M/S Sahu Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Sanjay Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko and 6 others
- M/s.Oil & Natural Gas CorporationLtd. v. M/s.Idealis Mudchemie PrivateLimited
- State of Uttar Pradesh Through Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly Secretariat v. Tata Consultancy Services Limited
- Rajan @ Rajendra Prasad v. Surendra Kumar Jain
- FAO (OS) (COMM) 42/2019 v. PRECISION TECHNIK PRIVATE LIMITED
- FAO (OS) (COMM) 42/2019 v. PRECISION TECHNIK PRIVATE LIMITED
- PRAKASH KUMAR THAKER v. THE JHARKHAND STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAC MARKETING AND PROCUREMENT FEDERATION LIMITED
- Sankar Kumar Pal v. Indian Statistical Institute & Ors.
Text reproduced from the public statutes on which the corpus is built. Verify against the official Gazette before relying on it. This is statute reference, not legal advice.