Chapter II - Of Contracts, Voidable Contracts and Void Agreements
Section 19
Section 19: Voidability where consent is not free
Section 19 makes an agreement voidable at the affected party's option when consent is caused by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation. It distinguishes that option from treating every such agreement as automatically void.
On this page
Need advice on Section 19?
This article is for general information. Refer to the Indian Contract Act, 1872 official text for the official provisions. If you need professional advice for your situation, contact Bizeneed.
Statutory text
Bare law
When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion,*** fraud or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.
A party to a contract whose consent was caused by fraud or misrepresentation, may, if he thinks fit, insist that the contract shall be performed, and that he shall be put in the position in which he would have been if the representations made had been true.
Exception.—If such consent was caused by misrepresentation or by silence, fraudulent within the meaning of section 17, the contract, nevertheless, is not voidable, if the party whose consent was so caused had the means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence.
Explanation.—A fraud or misrepresentation which did not cause the consent to a contract of the party on whom such fraud was practised, or to whom such misrepresentation was made, does not render a contract voidable.
Illustrations
(a) A, intending to deceive B, falsely represents that five hundred maunds of indigo are made annually at A’s factory, and thereby induces B to buy the factory. The contract is voidable at the option of B.
(b) A, by a misrepresentation, leads B erroneously to believe that, five hundred maunds of indigo are made annually at A’s factory. B examines the accounts of the factory, which show that only four hundred maunds of indigo have been made. After this B buys the factory. The contract is not voidable on account of A’s misrepresentation.
(c) A fraudulently informs B that A’s estate is free from in cumbrance. B thereupon buys the estate. The estate is subject to a mortgage. B may either avoid the contract, or may insist on its being carried out and the mortgage debt redeemed.
(d) B, having discovered a vein of ore on the estate of A, adopts means to conceal, and does conceal, the existence of the ore from A. Through A’s ignorance B is enabled to buy the estate at an under-value. The contract is voidable at the option of A.
(e) A is entitled to succeed to an estate at the death of B; B dies: C, having received intelligence of B’s death, prevents the intelligence reaching A, and thus induces A to sell him his interest in the estate. The sale is voidable at the option of A.
Rule and business relevance
For fraud or misrepresentation, the affected party may instead insist on performance and being placed in the position that would exist if the representations were true. The exception concerning ordinary diligence is directed to misrepresentation or fraudulent silence. The explanation requires the fraud or misrepresentation to have caused consent.
Limits and related provisions
Do not extend the ordinary-diligence exception indiscriminately to every kind of active fraud. Undue influence is addressed separately by Section 19A. Remedy choice, benefits received and subsequent conduct require case-specific advice rather than an assumption that a party can retain every benefit and ignore every obligation.
Hypothetical business example
Hypothetical: a buyer is induced by a false statement that purchased property is free from a mortgage. It obtains advice on avoiding the contract or insisting on the promised position, preserving evidence that the representation actually caused the purchase.
Practical decision flow
Identify the coercion, fraud or misrepresentation and its causal effect on consent.
Check whether the precise ordinary-diligence exception applies rather than assuming it covers all misconduct.
Assess and communicate the legally appropriate remedy choice with advice on benefits, performance and related obligations.
Check the applicable legal framework
This guide explains the central provision. Applicable State amendments, the agreement, transaction date and other governing laws can affect its application. Check the current legal framework before relying on it for a commercial decision.
Practical checklist
Do
- Identify the coercion, fraud or misrepresentation and its causal effect on consent.
- Check whether the precise ordinary-diligence exception applies rather than assuming it covers all misconduct.
- Assess and communicate the legally appropriate remedy choice with advice on benefits, performance and related obligations.
Avoid
- Do not extend the ordinary-diligence exception indiscriminately to every kind of active fraud. Undue influence is addressed separately by Section 19A. Remedy choice, benefits received and subsequent conduct require case-specific advice rather than an assumption that a party can retain every benefit and ignore every obligation.
Glossary
- Voidable option
- The affected party's choice recognised by this provision, distinct from automatic invalidity.
- Ordinary diligence exception
- The exception stated for misrepresentation or fraudulent silence where the truth could have been discovered with ordinary diligence.
Frequently asked questions
Is the agreement automatically void in every case?
The section describes a contract voidable at the affected party's option.
Can the affected party sometimes insist on performance?
For fraud or misrepresentation, the section provides the stated alternative of performance in the represented position.
Does any fraud, even one that did not affect the decision, suffice?
The explanation says fraud or misrepresentation that did not cause consent does not render the contract voidable on that basis.
Need help applying this provision to your situation?
Contact BizeneedLast updated 10 October 2026