LANDMARK CASE

Tarsem Singh v. Sukhminder Singh

(1998) 3 SCC 471 · Supreme Court of India · Contract law

At a glance

Citation: (1998) 3 SCC 471
Court: Supreme Court of India
Area of law: Contract law
In one line: Yes. Mistake about a fact essential to the agreement made it void.

1 Facts

Parties disagreed whether land was measured in kanals or bighas.

2 Issue

Is the contract void for mutual mistake?

3 What the court decided

Yes. Mistake about a fact essential to the agreement made it void.

4 Why it matters

Leading case on Section 20.

5 Think about it

What is an 'essential' fact?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Contract law

Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas AIR 1966 SC 543
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 QB 256
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly (1986) 3 SCC 156
Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (2017) 14 SCC 80
Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Dass AIR 1963 SC 1405
Felthouse v. Bindley (1862) 11 CB (NS) 869

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← Tahsildar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh Tata Press v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.