COERCION (Sections 15, 19 and 72)
Coercion is (i) the committing, or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or (ii) the
unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention
of causing any person to enter into an agreement.
Examples
(1) A Hindu widow is forced to adopt X under threat that her husband’s corpse (dead body) would not be allowed to
be removed unless she adopts X. The adoption is voidable as having been induced by coercion [Ranganayakamma v.
Alwar Setti, 13 Mad. 24.].
(2) A threatens to kill B if he doesn’t transfer his house in A’s favour for a very low price. The agreement is voidable
for being the result of coercion.
(3) An agent refused to hand over the books of accounts of the principal unless he (principal) released him from all
liabilities concerning past transactions.
Held : The release so given was not binding, being the outcome of coercion [Muthia v. Karuppan 50 Mad. 780].
Note that, it is not necessary that coercion must have been exercised against the promisor only, it may be directed at
any person.
Examples
(1) A threatens to kill B (C’s son) if C does not let out his house to A. The agreement is caused by coercion.
(2) X threatens to kill A if he does not sell his house to B at a very low price. The agreement is caused by coercion
though X is stranger to the transaction.
Further, note that, it is immaterial whether the Indian Penal Code is or is not in force in the place where the coercion
is employed (Explanation to Section 15).
Example
A, on board an English ship on the high seas, causes B to enter into an agreement by an act amounting to criminal
intimidation under the Indian Penal Code. A afterwards sues B for breach of contract at Calcutta. A has employed
coercion, although his act is not an offence by the law of England, and although the Indian Penal Code was not in
force at the time or place where the act was done.
Threat to Commit Suicide—Is it Coercion?
The doubt arises because suicide though forbidden by the Indian Penal Code is for obvious reasons not punishable. A
dead person cannot be punished. But, since Section 15 declares that committing or threatening to commit any act
forbidden by the Indian Penal Code is coercion, a threat to commit suicide should obviously be so regarded (suicide
being forbidden). The same view was held in Ammiraju v. Seshamma (1917) 41 Mad. 33. In this case, ‘A’ obtained a
release deed from his wife and son under a threat of committing suicide. The transaction was set aside on the ground
of coercion.
DURESS
The English equal of coercion is Duress. Duress has been defined as causing, or threatening to cause, bodily violence
or imprisonment, with a view to obtain the consent of the other party to the contract. Duress differs from coercion on
the following points:
1. ‘Coercion’ can be employed against any person, whereas ‘duress’ can be employed only against the other party to
the contract or the members of his family.
2. ‘Coercion’ may be employed by any person, and not necessarily by the promisee. ‘Duress’ can be employed only
by the party to the contract or his agent.
3. ‘Coercion’ is wider in its scope and includes unlawful detention of goods also. ‘Duress’ on the other hand does not
include unlawful detention of goods. Only bodily violence or imprisonment is duress.
CONSEQUENCES OF COERCION (Section 19)
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 obtained. In other words, the aggrieved party can have the contract set aside or if he so desires
to insist on its performance by the other party.
Liability of Person to Whom Money is Paid or Thing Delivered Under Coercion (Section 12)
A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered under coercion must repay or return it.
Example
A railway company refuses to deliver certain goods to the consignee, except upon the payment of an illegal charge for
carriage. The consignee pays the sum charged in order to obtain the goods. He is entitled to recover so much of the
charge as was illegally excessive.
