Back
1921 Supreme(Cal) 292
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Panton, J., N.R. Chatterjea, J.
Adhor Chandra Dass - Appellant
Versus
Rameswar Manna - Respondent
Decided On : 08-12-1921
The main legal point established is that the promise to pay the decretal debt was owing to undue influence and coercion, rendering the decree in the rent-suit not binding upon the plaintiff.
Headnote:
Undue Influence - Rent Dispute - The court found that the promise to pay the decretal debt was owing to undue influence and coercion, and the decree in the rent-suit was not binding upon the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant brought a suit for rent at the rate of Rs. 110 odd against the respondent and obtained a decree. The respondent paid Rs. 50 in cash and promised to pay the balance of the decree within a month. The respondent then brought a suit for a declaration that the decree was fraudulent and not binding upon him.
Finding of the Court:
The Court of Appeal concluded that the rent was not Rs. 110 odd as claimed by the appellant, but was Rs. 82 odd only. It found that the promise to pay the decretal debt was owing to undue influence and coercion, and the present plaintiff did not make the promise as a free agent.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the decree for rent and the influence under which the promise to pay the debt was made.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 72 of the Contract Act and emphasized that the word 'coercion' referred to in that section is used in its general and ordinary sense, not being controlled by the definition of 'coercion' in Section 15 of the Act.
Final Decision: Based on the findings of the lower Appellate Court, the appeal was dismissed with costs, and the court did not interfere in the case. The dismissal of the appeal did not mean the dismissal of the rent-suit.
JUDGMENT
1. In this case the appellant brought a suit for rent at the rate of Rs. 110 odd against the respondent and obtained a decree. In execution of the decree he attached certain goods of the plaintiff and the latter, in order to get back his goods, paid Rs. 50 in cash and promised to pay the balance of the decree within a month. Within that time he brought the present suit for a declaration that the decree was fraudulent and not binding upon him.
2. The Court of Appeal below has come to the conclusion that the rent was not Rs. 110 odd, as was claimed by the appellant in the previous suit, but was Rs. 82 odd only. It is found that the promise to pay the decretal debt was clearly owing to undue influence" (by which the learned Subordinate Judge probably means "undue pressure") and that the present plaintiff did not make the promise as a free agent.
3. The case thus comes u/s 72 of the Contrast Act [see illustration (b) of that section]. As pointed out by the Judicial Committee, the word 'coercion' referred to in that section is used in its general and ordinary sense, its meaning not being controlled by the definition of 'coercion' in Section 15 of the Act [See the case of Kanhaya Lal v. National Bank of India Limited (1)].
4. Upon the findings arrived at by the lower Appellate Court we do not think we can interfere in this case, The appeal must accordingly be dismissed with costs.
5. It is to be observed, however, that the fast that the decree in the rent-suit has been set aside by the Court below or the fast that the appeal to this Court is dismissed, does not mean the dismissal of the rent-suit.
