Section 36 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872: Agreements Contingent on Impossible Events

Section 36 deals with a contingent agreement that depends on an impossible event. If the agreement requires an impossible event to happen before an obligation arises, the agreement is void, whether or not the parties knew of the impossibility when they made it.

Key rule: A contingency cannot support an enforceable obligation when the event on which it depends is impossible from the outset. Knowledge of that impossibility is not required by Section 36.

Text and meaning of Section 36

Section 36 - Agreement contingent on impossible events void.

In substance, the provision makes a contingent agreement void where doing or not doing something depends upon an impossible event happening. The rule applies whether the parties knew or did not know that the event was impossible when the agreement was made.

The provision forms part of Chapter III of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which deals with contingent contracts. A contingent contract is defined in Section 31 as a contract to do or not to do something if an event collateral to the contract happens or does not happen.

Essential ingredients of Section 36

For Section 36 to apply, the agreement must be contingent upon the happening of an event, the event must be impossible, and the promised act or omission must depend on that impossible event. Once these conditions exist, the agreement is void. The parties' knowledge or lack of knowledge about the impossibility does not change the statutory result.

Statutory illustrations

The Act gives two illustrations. First, an agreement to pay money if two straight lines enclose a space is void because the stated event is impossible. Second, an agreement to pay money if a person marries a particular individual who was already dead when the agreement was made is also void. The second illustration shows why the provision expressly says that the parties' knowledge of the impossibility is immaterial.

Section 36 and other contingent-contract provisions

Section 32 concerns enforcement of a contract contingent on an uncertain future event happening. Such a contract cannot be enforced unless and until the event happens and becomes void if the event becomes impossible. Section 35 deals with contingencies connected with a specified event happening or not happening within a fixed time. Section 36 directly addresses an agreement whose stipulated event is itself impossible.

Difference between Section 36 and Section 56

Section 36 concerns an agreement made contingent on the happening of an impossible event. Section 56 separately addresses agreements to do acts that are impossible in themselves and contracts that later become impossible or unlawful to perform. The provisions may both involve impossibility, but they operate in different statutory settings: Section 36 is part of the law of contingent contracts, while Section 56 concerns impossibility of the promised act or subsequent impossibility or unlawfulness of performance.

Practical legal effect

An agreement falling within Section 36 is void and cannot be enforced merely because one or both parties mistakenly believed that the impossible event could occur. When drafting a conditional agreement, the contingency should therefore be legally and factually capable of occurring and should be stated clearly enough to identify when the contractual obligation arises.

Note: The application of Section 36 depends on the terms and facts of the particular agreement. Section 36 should also be read with Sections 31 to 35 and, where performance itself is alleged to be impossible, Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Official legal source

The current central Act text can be checked on the Government of India's India Code portal. For authoritative use in litigation or legal drafting, verify the statutory text and any applicable amendments from the official source.

Official Indian Contract Act, 1872 - India Code

Last reviewed: 20 September 2026. This page is a general legal information resource and is not a substitute for advice on the facts of a particular case.