Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Section 13 of the Act is as under:

13. 'Consent' defined.- Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense."

Section 14 of the Act is as under:

14. 'Free consent' defined.- Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by--

(1) coercion, as defined in Section 15, or (2) undue influence, as defined in Section 16, or (3) fraud, as defined in Section 17, or (4) misrepresentation as defined in Section 18, or (5) mistake, subject to the provisions of Sections 20, 21 and 22.

Section 17 of the Act is as under:

"17. 'Fraud' defined.- 'Fraud' means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:-

(1) the suggestion, as a fact, or that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;

(2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;

17. Next, coming to the aspect of fraud, Section 17 of Contract Act says that where one person or his agent or with the connivance with an intention to deceive other party, following acts also done, i.e., if the suggestion about the fact which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true; active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact; a promise made without any intention of performing it and any other act fitted to deceive.

18. Here also, as admitted by the plaintiff, he is the person in the real estate business, he must be knowing what is the real value of the property. Even if the defendant No.1 does not knowing the value of the property, then the duty cast upon the plaintiff to mention what is the real value. But here by suggesting to defendant No.1 the worth of the property is Rs.1,80,00,000/-, he has committed fraud as defined U/Sec.17(1) and (2) of the Contract Act, because, even for a moment if we consider there was no talks for Rs.7,20,00,000/-, it was only for Rs.1,80,00,000/- and the same was reduced into writing as per Ex.P.1, then the plaintiff who is aware of the market value of the property, must have informed the worth of the property to the defendant No.1. His active concealment and also suggestion discloses that he has played fraud on the defendant.