Page 53 - DCOM103_COMMERCIAL_LAW

Commercial Law

Notes

Case Study Threat to commit suicide-Does it amount to coercion?

he question whether a threat to commit suicide amounts to coercion arose in Chi k
ham Amiraju v. Seshamma, (1917) 41 Mad. 33. In this case, a person held out a threat
Tof committing suicide to his wife and son if they did not execute a release in favour
of his brother in respect of certain properties. The wife and son executed the release deed
under the threat. Held, “the threat of suicide amounted to coercion within Sec. 15 and the
release deed was, therefore, voidable.” In another case. Purabi Bannerjee v. Basudev MukerJee,
A.I.R. (1969) Cal. 293, it was observed that “one committing suicide places himself or
herself beyond the reach of the law, and necessarily beyond the reach of any punishment
too. But it does not follow that suicide is not forbidden by the Penal Code. Sec. 306 of the
Penal Code punishes abetment of suicide. Sec. 309 punishes an attempt to commit suicide.
Thus suicide as such is no crime, as indeed, it cannot be. But its attempt is; its abetment too
is. So, it may very well be said that the Penal Code does forbid suicide.”
As such, a threat to commit suicide amounts to coercion.
Duress. In the English Law, the near equivalent of the term ‘coercion’ is ‘duress’. Duress
involves actual or threatened violence over the person of another (or his wife, parent, or child)
with a view to obtaining his consent to the agreement. If the threat is with regard to the
goods or property of the other party, it is not duress.

5.1.2 Meaning of Undue Infl uence (s.16)

Undue influence consists in the improper exercise of power over the mind of one of the contracting

parties by the other. A contract is said to be induced by undue influence where the relations
subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will
of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.

Example: A, a man enfeebled by disease or age, is induced by B’s influence over him as his

medical attendant to agree to pay B an unreasonable sum for his professional services, B employs
undue infl uence.

Presumption of undue influence as regards persons in particular relationships. After reciting the

general principle of undue influence, s.16 lays down rules of presumption as regards persons
in particular relations. It reads: A person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of
another: (i) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other or where he stands in

a fiduciary relation to the other or (ii) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental
capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness or mental or bodily
stress. Some of the relationships which raise a presumption of undue influence are: (a) parent and

child; (b) guardian and ward; (c) doctor and patient; (d) spiritual guru and disciple; (e) lawyer
and client; (f) trustee and beneficiary. However, the presumption of undue influence can be

rebutted by showing that the party said to have been influenced had independent legal advice of
one who had full knowledge of the relevant facts.
Example: A Hindu, well advanced in age, with the object of securing benefits to his soul

in the next world, gave away his whole property to his spiritual guru. Undue infl uence was
presumed.
There is no presumption of undue influence in the relationships between (i) husband and wife;

(ii) master and servant; (iii) creditor and debtor; (iv) landlord and tenant.

46 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY