BALA DEVI Vs. S.

MAZUMDAR
AN ILLITERATE WOMAN EXECUTED A DEED
UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT SHE WAS
EXECUTING A DEED AUTHORISING HER NEPHEW
TO MANAGE HER LAND , WHILE IN FACT IT WAS
A DEED OF GIFT IN FAVOUR OF HER NEPHEW.
EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT SHE NEVER INTENDED
TO EXECUTE SUCH DEED.
IS THE DEED VOID AND INOPERATIVE?
WHY?
CAI-S-13

1.A, ON BOARD AN ENGLISH SHIP ON

HIGHSEAS,CAUSES
B TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT BY AN ACT AMOUNTING TO CRIMINAL
INTIMIDATION UNDER THE INDIAN PENAL CODE.
2.BY THREAT OF SUICIDE A HINDU INDUCES HIS
WIFEAND
SON TO EXECUTE A RELEASE IN FAVOUR OF HIS
BROTHER IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN PROPERTY.
C.AMIRJU Vs. C.SHAMMA
3.A RAILWAY COMPANY REFUSES TO DELIVER CERTAIN
GOODS TO THE CONSIGNEE EXPECT ON PAYMENT OF
ILLIGAL CHARGES.

COERCION
1.THER MUST BE A CLEAR UTTERANCE OF
THREAT
2.THE THREAT SHOULD BE TO COMMIT AN ACT
FORBIDDEN BY LAW
3.IT MUST BE UTTERED WITH THE INTENTION
OF CAUSING THE OTHER PARTY TO ENTER INTO
AN AGREEMENT.
DURESS-DIRECTED AGAINST ANY LIFE OF THE
OTHER PARTY,TO CAUSE IMMEDIATE VIOLENCE.
RECOGNISED BY ENGLISH LAW ONLY.
EFFECT: VOIDABLE

1.A POLICE OFFICER PURCHASES A

PROPERTY FROM AN
ACCUSED PAYING RS.200000 BUT THE
MARKET PRICE IS RS 3LAC( REAL OR
APPARENT AUTHORITY)

2.A SOLICITOR SOLD CERTAIN PROPERTY BELONGING

TO HIM AT AN OVER VALUED PRICE.
(MOODY V.COX,1917)
(FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP)
3.A POOR HINDU WIDOW WHO WAS IN DIRE NEED OF
MONEY WAS FORCED TO PAY INTEREST @ 100%.
(RANEE ANNAPURNI Vs. SWAMINATHA,1910)
[MENTAL
CAPACITY AFFECTED BY REASON OF AGE]

WHEN THE RELATION SUBSISTING BETWEEN

TWO PARTIES IS ARE SUCH THAT ONE IS IN A
POSITION TO DOMINATE THE WILL OF THE
OTHER AND USES THE POSITION TO OBTAIN
AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THE OTHER.
(SEC-16)
WHEN SUSPECTED ?
1.INADEQUATE CONSIDERATION
2.INEQUALITY BETWEEN PARTIES
3.FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP
4.PARDANASHIN WOMAN
5.UNCONSCIONABLE BARGAIN

1.RAMBAI Vs. LIC OF INDIA

R AGED 60 FASIFIES THAT SHE IS OF 48 & TOOK AN
INSURANCE POLICY.(false suggestion)
2.A COMPNY ISSUED A PROSPECTUS WITHOUT MENTIONING ITS
LIABILITIES(PEEK VS. GURNEY.)(Active concealment of
fact)
3. A MAN AND A WOMAN WENT THROUGH A CEREMONY OF
MARRIAGE BUT HUSBAND HAD NO INTENTION OF TREATING IT
AS A REAL MARRIAGE.(SHIREEN VS. JOHN JAMES)(A
Promise
without intention to perform it)
4.ANY ACT OR OMISSION

WILFUL REPRESENTATION BY A PARTY TO WITH THE INTENT

TO DECEIVE ANOTHER PARTY OR TO INDUCE SUCH PARTY TO
ENTER INTO A CONTRACT IS FRAUD(SEC-17)

SILENCE IS FRAUD
1.CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE
2.CONTRACTS OF MARRIAGE
3.CONTRACTS OF FAMILY SETTLEMENTS
4.SHARE ALLOTMENT CONTRACTS

1.A ON HERARSAY ASSERTED TO B THAT C IS GOING TO BE

THE DIRECTOR OF A COMPANY.BELIEVING IT TO BE TRUE B
PURCSASED SHARES IN THE COMPANY(POSITIVE ASSERTION)
MOHONLAL Vs. SHRI GANGAJI COTTENMILLS CO-1900)

2.A BEFORE SIGNING A CONTRACT FOR SALE OF HIS

BUSINESS STATES THAT THE MONTHLY SALES IS
RS.50000 pm WHERE AS IT CAME DOWN TO RS.5000
MONTHLY AT THE TIME OF SIGNING THE CONTRACT.A
KEPT SILENT ON THIS.(BREACH OF DUTY)
3.A TRADER OF KOLKATA AGREED TO SUPPLY A BOILER TO
B
AT PHULBANI & AT BS SUGGESTION THROUGH
RAILWAYS.THERE WAS NO RAIL CONNECTION TO
PHULBANI.
(CAUSING A PARTY INOCENTLY TO MAKE A MISTAKE)

A WRONG REPRESENTATION WHEN MADE

INNOCENTLY IS MISREPRESENTATION.
1.THERE MUST BE AN ASSERTION
2.SUCH ASSERTION HAS BECOME UNTRUE

3.MADE TO INDUCE THE OTHER PARTY TO

ENTER INTO A CONTRACT
4.MADE EITHER BY THE PARTY OR HIS AGENT
5.THE OTHER PARTY HAS ACTED UPON THIS.

MISTAKE
AN ERRONEOUS BELIEF CONCERNING SOMETHING
A) MISTAKE OF FACT
a)BILATERAL MISTAKE:MISTAKE AS TO THE
EXISTENCE,
IDENTITY, TITLE, PRICE,QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF
THE SUBJECT MATTER
b)UNILATERAL MISTAKE MISTAKE AS TO THE NATURE
OF THE CONTRACT , IDENTITY OF THE PERSON
CONTRACTED WITH
B) MISTAKE OF LAW