Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

A has employed coercion, although his act is not an offence by the law of England, and although section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) was not in force at the time when or place where the act was done."

Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 further provides that when consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.

7.2. Issue No. 2: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of the suit property, as prayed for? OPP.

7.2.1. The onus to prove this Issue is upon the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is admitted owner of the suit property. The Defendant is a purchaser under an unregistered agreement to sell and also has filed the suit for specific performance.

7.2.2. The Plaintiff has set up the case that the agreement to sell and other documents in question, i.e., Ex. D-1 to Ex. D-5, were executed by coercion and therefore, are not binding upon the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, being well aware of the documents, did not seek any declaration against the aforesaid documents. Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that when consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. The difference between the void and voidable contract is that a void contract is null and void ab-initio, whereas a voidable contract remains valid till the time the same is declared to be void, at the option of the party, whose consent is not freely given. The aforesaid proposition can be traced to the judgment ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 45 of 65 passed by the Full Bench of Privy Council in, "Ramchandra Jivaji Kanago and Ors. Vs. Laxman Shrinivas Naik and Ors.: AIR1945PC54." The relevant observation of the Privy Council are being reproduced hereinbelow:

19. Voidability of agreements without free consent.

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.

A party to a contract whose consent was caused by fraud or misrepresentation, may, if he thinks fit, insist that the contract shall be performed, and that he shall be put in the position in which he would have been if the representations made had been true.

Explanation:

A fraud or misrepresentation which did not cause the consent to a contract of the party on whom such fraud was practiced, or to whom such misrepresentation was made, does not render a contract voidable.

31. The contention of the Plaintiffs is that the deed of settlement marked as Exhibit B-3, was obtained by fraud and coercion. This would place the document ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 48 of 65 in the category of voidable documents as set out in section 19 of the Contract Act. This would mean that the plaintiffs cannot seek recovery of possession without seeking to set aside the said document. No such prayer has been made and consequently, the suit would have to be dismissed.' Therefore, it was imperative on the Plaintiff to seek cancellation of such of Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6 or at least of the Exhibit D-2, i.e., of the agreement to sell dated 01.05.2015, if it was voidable, in order to exercise of option getting the same adjudged as null and void. The Plaintiff has not sought any such prayer of cancellation.