#Contingent Contracts

Bombay High Court rules that a suit for specific performance of an undivided share in immovable property must include a claim for partition under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Court also held that contingent contracts become void upon withdrawal of the underlying litigation, and blanket injunctions require precise property description to be valid.

The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) clarified that a contingent contract under Section 32 of the Transfer of Property Act does not automatically become void if permission for transfer is denied due to the plaintiff's fault. The ruling underscores that contractual obligations persist unless the contingency is legally impossible, not merely due to one party's failure to comply.