Free consent - Coercion

Free consent : Sec 14 – consent said to be free when not caused by –

(1)   coercion as defined in Sec.15, or

(2)   undue influence, as defined in Sec.16, or

(3)   fraud, as defined in Sec.17, or

(4)   misrepresentation, as defined in Sec.18, or

(5)   mistake, subject to provisions of Sec.20-22.

When consent to an agreement caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation – agreement is contract, voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused  (Sec.19) – If he confirms it, contract is binding on both parties.

Where consent caused by mistake – agreement is void.

Bala Devi Vs. S. Majumdar – illiterate woman – executed deed of gift in favour of nephew – under impression that it was deed authorising nephew to manage the lands – Evidence adduced that woman never intended to execute such deed – nor deed read or explained to her – Held, deed void and inoperative. 

Coercion : Sec.15 – coercion is committing or threatening to commit - any act forbidden by IPC - or unlawfully detaining or threatening to detain any property -  to the prejudice of any person – with intention to causing such person to enter into an agreement.

It is immaterial whether IPC (Indian Penal Code) is or is not in force in the place where the coercion is employed. 

Example :

(1)   A threatens to shoot B if B does not release him (A) from debt which A owes to B - B releases A under the threat - The release brought about by coercion.

(2)   Chikham Amiraju Vs. Chikham Seshamma – By threat of suicide, a Hindu induced his wife and son to execute a release in favour of his brother in respect of certain properties which they claimed as their own – Held, the threat of suicide amounted to coercion – release deed was voidable. 

(3)   Ranganayakamma Vs. Alwar  - Husband of a young girl of 13 died – relatives of husband prevented the removal of his body for cremation unless she adopts a boy to inherit the properties of her husband  - she consented – Held, the consent was not free but was induced by coercion – adoption set aside. 

(4)   Muthia Vs. Muthu Karuppa – an agent refused to hand over the account books of a business to the new agent unless the principal released him from all liabilities -  principal gave the release deed as demanded – Held, release deed given under coercion – voidable at the option of the principal.

(5)   Bansraj Vs. Secretary of State – T, son of B liable for fine – Government gave threat of attachment of property to B for recovery of fine from T – B paid the fine – Held, the contract was induced by coercion.

Sec.72 – a person to whom money has been paid or anything delivered by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it.

Person who wants to relieve himself of the consequences of the contract – onus lies on him to prove that his consent caused by coercion – has also to prove that he would not have entered into it had coercion not been employed.

What Indian Law calls ‘coercion’, is called ‘duress’ or ‘menace’ in English Law – duress involves actual or threatened violence or imprisonment of contracting party (or his wife, parent or child) with a view to obtain consent to the agreement – coercion is much wider than duress and includes the unlawful detention of property also.