Scribd
Upload
592 views1 page

Bansraj V Secretary of State

Bansraj appealed a lower court's dismissal of his claim that payment of a fine imposed on his son was made under coercion. The High Court reversed, finding that detaining Bansraj's cattle by the government to realize the fine amounted to coercion under section 15 of the Indian Contract Act. Additionally, the court held that the attached cattle were joint family property, not just the son's, and the government wrongly attached property that did not solely belong to the convicted individual.

Uploaded by

p
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
592 views1 page

Bansraj V Secretary of State

Bansraj appealed a lower court's dismissal of his claim that payment of a fine imposed on his son was made under coercion. The High Court reversed, finding that detaining Bansraj's cattle by the government to realize the fine amounted to coercion under section 15 of the Indian Contract Act. Additionally, the court held that the attached cattle were joint family property, not just the son's, and the government wrongly attached property that did not solely belong to the convicted individual.

Uploaded by

p
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Bansraj v Secretary of State

Allahabad High Court


Facts:

Bansraj is the father of Jairaj, who had been convicted of a crime and had been sentenced to a
term of imprisonment along with a Rs. 300 fine. To realize the fine, the government attached
some cattle. The plaintiff, Bansraj paid the amount in order to save the cattle. He then appealed
against the secretary of state claiming that the payment was made under coercion and that the
cattle belonged to him. Trial Court dismissed the appeal saying no coercion was used.

Issues:

Was there coercion used?

Held:

The High Court reversed the trial court’s order and said that Bansraj was to recover the money
as there was use of coercion. It defined coercion as given in section 15 of Indian Contract Act as
inclusive of detaining of property in order to make any payment. Therefore, In this case to,
coercion was used.

Secondly, the property concerned was joint family property and not Jairaj’s alone. Therefore,
the government was wrong in attaching such joint property as the court held that it was only
acceptable to have attached the convict’s property.

You might also like