Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Submission is that Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act provides that "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....."

Thus, it is clear that when fraud is pleaded in a suit then the document alleged to have been obtained by fraud or by misrepresentation would be voidable document and not void.

In the case of Prem Singh and others Vs. Birbal and others14, the Supreme Court has held that Article 59 of the Limitation Act would be attracted when coercion, undue influence, misappropriation or fraud is required to be proved. It has been held that if a suit is found to be barred by limitation, every suit instituted, appeal preferred and every application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed. It has been further held that if a deed was executed by the plaintiff when he was a minor and it was void and he did not file suit within the limitation period prescribed, then the suit was barred by limitation.

So far as the question as to whether in the given facts of this case the Will Deed dated 7.1.1987 could be a void or voidable document, the definition of void and voidable document is required to be seen. Under Section 2(g) of Indian Contract Act void document would mean "an agreement not enforceable by law is said to be void" whereas term "voidable" has been defined under Section 2(i) of the Indian Contract Act as "an agreement which is enforceable by law at the option of one or more of the parties thereto, but not at the option of the other or others, is a voidable contract".

Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines that "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........." Thus, it is clear that when fraud is pleaded for cancellation in a suit then it is voidable not void document and the document alleged to have been obtained by fraud or by misrepresentation, would be a voidable and not a void document.

In the case of Mathai Samuel & others (Supra), it has been held that Will is an instrument whereunder a person makes a disposition of his properties to take effect after his death and which is in its own nature ambulatory and revocable during his life. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment are reproduced below:-