Back
Judges : SUKUMARAN
Mathew - Appellant
Versus
Kuruvilla - Respondent
Case No : S.A. No. 389 of 1978
Decided On : 11/05/1982
Advocates Appeared :
S. Easwara Iyer; E. Subramoni; For Appellant N. Raghava Kurup; M.S. Narayana Pillai; For Respondent
Coercion - Civil Dispute - S.72 of the Indian Contract Act - The court discussed the principles of law under S.72 of the Indian Contract Act and held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, which had been received by the defendant under coercion.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought to recover a sum of Rs. 10,000/- paid to the defendant under coercion at a police station in the small hours after midnight. The defendant had initiated criminal proceedings against the plaintiff and unlawfully detained him, leading to the plaintiff's payment under threat of arrest and prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The courts below found that the plaintiff was coerced into executing an agreement and paying Rs. 10,000/- to the defendant at the police station. The appellate court held that the defendant had considerable influence over the police and that the plaintiff was coerced into the transaction.
Issues: The central issues were whether the agreement dated 12-6-1970 was void and illegal, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to realize the plaint amount from the defendant as claimed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of S.72 of the Indian Contract Act and held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount paid under coercion. It discussed the general and ordinary sense of 'coercion' and cited judicial decisions to support the plaintiff's entitlement to recovery.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the second appeal at the instance of the defendant, upholding the findings of the courts below and ruling that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount paid under coercion.
1. A police station is hardly the venue and the small hours after midnight hardly an auspicious time, for the resolution of what is essentially a civil dispute. A transaction entered into at such a place and at such a time, is likely to be viewed as susceptible to vitiating influences. That was what had happened in Kottayam town; and in the year 1970,
2. Those who feel vanquished by unjust official might are not always likely to give expression to their moral indignation by resort to the process of law. Quite often, people suffer in silence, such indignities and such losses. The plaintiff in the case, however, with commendable courage, sought to resort to a court of law for the vindication of his just claims. The courts below have granted him relief. Whether the judgments and decrees of the courts below are vitiated, so vitiated on any substantial question of law as to invite interference in the attenuated jurisdiction of a second appeal, is the matter arising for consideration in this case.
3. The salient facts relevant for the issue arising for decision in the second appeal may be briefly stated as follows:
4. The defendant is the appellant in the second appeal. He was a partner of a firm known by the name and style 'Rooparekha'. It engaged itself in the production of films. A Malayalam feature film Janmabhoomi' was its product. The financial requirements for the production had to be met by the firm. The plaintiff, Proprietor of Dinny Films, was engaged in the distribution of films. According to the plaintiff, on the understanding that the film when released would be entrusted with the plaintiff for the distribution in the State of Kerala, he had advanced to the defendant a sum of Rs. 27,749/- covered by two promissory notes, Ext. Al dated 30-12-1968, for Rs.15,000/- and Ext. A2 dated 29-1-1969 for Rs. 12,749/-. 'Rooparekha' appears to have availed of a loan from the firm Financial Corporation of Bombay, to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. That corporation bad stipulated as a condition for advancing the loan that the producer should itself be the distributor and that 85% of the collection should be paid over to the Corporation in repayment of the debt. The plaintiff started distribution of the film only from October, 1969 in accordance with the directions of the partners of the firm. We are not concerned with the details relating to the arrangement between Rooparekha on the one hand and Dinny Films of which the plaintiff is the proprietor, on the other. The plaintiff would contend that the partners of the firm 'Rooparekha' developed serious differences of opinion between themselves and the firm itself ceased to function. The plaintiff alleged that when he was pressing for repayment of the amount due to him under the promissory notes Exts. Al and A2, the defendant, out of unjust motive, initiated criminal proceedings against the plaintiff Ext. A13 is the criminal complaint, filed on 15-5-1970 before the District Magistrate, Kottayam. A case was registered under S.403, 408 and 409 I. P. C. by the Kottayam West Police Station against the plaintiff and others, on the basis of the complaint so forwarded to the police station by the District Magistrate. Within a month thereafter, the investigation of the case, resulted in serious happenings. On 11-6-1970, the Sub Inspector of Police, along with others, effected a search in the business premises of the plaintiff. They seized certain prints of the film from the custody of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, later in the evening, the plaintiff and his office manager were taken to the police station and unlawfully detained there till about 1.30 a m. the next day. There was a threat from the Sub Inspector of Police that unless the plaintiff executed an agreement in favour of the defendant and paid over to the defendant the money as stipulated by the defendant, he would be arrested. He was told that serious charges bad been levelled against him. It was represented by the Sub
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
