Last Updated: May 2026
The Indian Contract Act 1872 for CLAT 2027 is one of the highest-yield areas in Legal Reasoning. Sections 13–22 (free consent), Sections 10–12 (capacity) and Section 2(d) (consideration) appear in nearly every CLAT past paper since 2020. This guide unpacks the doctrine, leading cases and a 25-question practice block — without waste.
Why the Contract Act Dominates CLAT Legal Reasoning
CLAT testers favour the Contract Act because it gives them clean fact patterns: an offer, an acceptance, a vitiating factor (coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, mistake), and a clean rule application. Memorise the doctrine and you can answer the passage even if the section number is hidden.
Section 10 — What is a Contract?
“All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void.”
Five essentials: (i) Agreement, (ii) Free consent, (iii) Capacity, (iv) Lawful consideration, (v) Lawful object.
Free Consent — Sections 13–22
| Vitiating Factor | Section | Effect | Leading Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coercion | 15 | Voidable at option of party whose consent was so caused | Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Setti |
| Undue Influence | 16 | Voidable; burden on dominant party to disprove | Mannu Singh v. Umadat Pande |
| Fraud | 17 | Voidable; right to damages | Derry v. Peek (English law influence) |
| Misrepresentation | 18 | Voidable; no damages (innocent) | Bisset v. Wilkinson |
| Mistake of Fact | 20 | Bilateral mistake — agreement is void | Bell v. Lever Brothers |
| Mistake of Indian Law | 21 | Not voidable | — |
| Mistake of Foreign Law | 21 | Treated as mistake of fact — voidable | — |
Capacity to Contract — Sections 11–12
Section 11 lays down three disqualifications: (i) minority, (ii) unsound mind, (iii) disqualified by law. The leading case Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) settled that a minor’s contract is void ab initio — not merely voidable. The Privy Council held that a minor who mortgaged property could not be compelled to repay the loan. CLAT 2020, 2022 and 2024 have tested this.
Consideration — Section 2(d) and Section 25
“When at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.” — Section 2(d).
Three CLAT-favourite features:
- “At the desire of the promisor” — established in Durga Prasad v. Baldeo (1880). Voluntary acts not at the promisor’s desire are not consideration.
- Privity of consideration — Indian law allows a stranger to consideration to sue, unlike English law (Chinnaya v. Ramayya 1882).
- Past consideration — valid in India under Section 2(d), unlike English law.
Section 25 Exceptions — Agreements Without Consideration
- Natural love and affection (in writing, registered, between near relations)
- Compensation for past voluntary services
- Promise to pay a time-barred debt (in writing, signed)
- Completed gift
- Agency (Section 185)
Section 23 — What Considerations and Objects are Lawful
Consideration/object is unlawful if: forbidden by law, defeats provisions of law, fraudulent, involves injury to person/property, immoral, or opposed to public policy.
Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya (1959) — wagering agreements are void under Section 30 but not unlawful under Section 23.
CLAT-Pattern Practice Passage
Passage: A, aged 17, mortgages his house to B for ₹20,000. The mortgage deed is duly registered. B, on default, sues A for foreclosure. A pleads minority. B argues that A misrepresented his age and is therefore estopped from raising the plea.
Q. Decide.
A. The contract is void ab initio under Mohori Bibee. The plea of estoppel cannot be invoked against a statute. A wins.
25 Practice MCQs
Quiz data missing.
How to Master the Contract Act for CLAT 2027
- Week 1–2: Read sections 1–30 with bare-act-style notes
- Week 3: Memorise the 12 leading cases (table above)
- Week 4: Solve 100 passage-based MCQs from past CLAT papers
- Cross-train: CLAT Logical Reasoning 2027 — Strategy
- Mock test discipline: Free CLAT Mock Test
FAQ
Q1. How many questions from the Contract Act appear in CLAT?
On average 4–6 of the 35–40 Legal Reasoning questions touch the Contract Act. In years like 2022, the count went to 8.
Q2. Do I need to read the entire 1872 Act?
Sections 1–75 are the high-yield zone (general principles + agency + indemnity). Sections 76–123 (sale of goods, partnership) were repealed/separated. Skip them.
Q3. Which is the most-tested case?
Without question, Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose. It has been tested in CLAT 2020, 2022, 2024, and AILET 2023.
Q4. Is section memorisation essential?
For Sections 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25 — yes. For others, the doctrine name is enough.
Q5. How does CLAT 2027 differ from earlier patterns?
Post-2020 CLAT is comprehension-based — the principle is given in the passage. You apply, not recall. But knowing the underlying section/case still gives a 30-second time advantage.
