9911796707
TMI Blog1913 (2) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The facts of the case, so far as they are relevant to the question involved in the appeal, are very simple. On the 15 the August 1902 the defendant Bank which had obtained a decree against the Delhi Cotton Mills Co. Ld., obtained an attachment against certain mills at Sabzi Mandi, and on the 20th August 1902 took possession of them to obtain satisfaction for a sum of ₹ 83,005, the balance then unpaid under such decree. In his plaint the plaintiff states that he was the sole proprietor of such mills and of their contents. On thus being ousted from his property he took the course of paying under protest the sum claimed. Having thus freed his property from the attachment he at once brought the present action claiming a return of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal lay against an Order dismissing a suit under Section 102. From this decision the plaintiff appealed to His Majesty in Council, and their Lordships held that the Order of the 18th November 1902 was a final decision on the case as to the recovery of the money, paid, and that therefore it was not competent to the Judge to dismiss that part of the case under the powers of Section 102. They therefore remitted the case to the Chief Court in order that the appeal to that Court, so far as it related to the recovery of the money paid, might be heard and decided on its merits. 5. The case having been thus remitted, the Chief Court rightly treated the appeal as an appeal from the Order of the 18th November 1902, dismissing the case with regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntiff's lawful enjoyment of his own property is alleged. The plaintiff was clearly entitled to rid himself of that unlawful interference by any lawful means without thereby affecting his right to hold the defendants liable for that which they have thus caused him to do. It is true that paying under protest the sum demanded was not the only course open to him. He might have taken legal proceedings, by which sooner or later he might have rid himself of the interference. But to do so would have involved his submitting to the wrong for all the period necessary for those proceedings to be effective, and that might have been a serious aggravation of the wrong. To this he was in nowise bound to submit. He was free to choose a course which did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght to take any other lawful alternative. 9. The main contention, however, was that the allegations in the plaint did not show coercion according to Indian Law. It was contended that nothing could be coercion under Indian Law unless it satisfied the definition of coercion ' which is found ins. 15 of the Indian Contract Act and that the allegations in the plaint failed so to do because they did not show that the unlawful detaining or threatening to detain the property was with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement. Their Lordships are of opinion that this argument is not sound and that it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the object and effect of Section 15 of the Indian Contract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nition of coercion is solely a definition which applies to the consideration whether there has been free consent to an agreement so as to render it a contract under Section 10. This explains why in the definition of coercion it is limited to an unlawful act done with the intention of causing the person to enter into an agreement. But it would be to make nonsense of the statute if it were to be taken to mean that coercion in a legal sense could only exist if the object was to bring about a contract. Indeed such an interpretation would render the Act inconsistent with itself. Section 72, which is in Chapter V, which deals with certain relations resembling those created by contract, reads as follows:- A person to whom money h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was not pressed before their Lordships. It is obviously unsustainable. Those clauses do not refer in any way to remedies against the wrongdoer and are therefore wholly irrelevant to the question in this appeal. 16. Their Lordships have thought it proper to deal specifically with the arguments raised on the hearing on account of the importance of the questions raised. But they are also of opinion that the matter is covered by authority. In the case of Dooli Chand v. Ram Kishen Singh (1887) L.R. 8 I.A. 93 the circumstances were very similar to those in the present case, and on appeal to this Board their Lordships decided that money paid by the true owner to prevent the sale of his property under an execution could be recovered back. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
