A 'Different' Series #18: Coercion Vs Undue Influence

Coverage of this Article

Difference between Coercion and Undue Influence

-Coercion is the act of compelling an individual or a party to do something involuntarily by using threats such as force

Coercion Case Laws

-In Ranganyakamma vs Alwar Setti 13 Mad. 24, a Hindu Widow was coerced into adopting X under the fear that her husband's body would not be removed until she adopted X.

Undue Influence Case Laws

-In Mannu Singh vs. Umadutt Pande (1890), a religious Guru B, whom A used to follow, took advantage of his trust and confidence and convinced him that according to the Bhagwad Gita, if you name all of your property after your Guru, you will get moksha.

Conclusion

-Thus, there are significant distinctions between coercion and Undue Influence.

Difference between Coercion and Undue Influence

Coercion Case Laws

• In Ranganyakamma vs Alwar Setti 13 Mad. 24, a Hindu Widow was coerced into adopting X under the fear that her husband's body would not be removed until she adopted X. Here, indignity was meted out to the body to injure the sentiments of the widow. Therefore, the Court deemed the adoption voidable since it was caused by coercion.
• In Muthiah v. Karippan (50 Mad 786: 1927 Mad 852: 103 IC 5), an operator refused to hand over the charge of his main's book, records, and money until the last executed a deed of discharge in respect of the claim against him, and the Court ruled that the deed was coerced.

Undue Influence Case Laws

• In Mannu Singh vs. Umadutt Pande (1890), a religious Guru B, whom A used to follow, took advantage of his trust and confidence and convinced him that according to the Bhagwad Gita, if you name all of your property after your Guru, you will get moksha. He did the same, but the Court observed something fishy and ruled that Guru took unfair advantage of the situation, rendering the contract unenforceable for the suffering party.
• In the case of Mercie Celina D'souza vs. Renie Fernandez (AIR 1998 KER 280), the plaintiff was not in proper mental health to engage in the contract, and the defendant urged the plaintiff to sign the property documents. She signed because she was unable to understand anything. The Court deemed this suspicious because two witnesses had no attestation, as needed, and went to the heart of the facts, ruling that it is voidable at the plaintiff's discretion.

Conclusion

Thus, there are significant distinctions between coercion and Undue Influence. Coercion refers to many sorts of coercive activities that limit an individual's freedom and force them to do the intended reaction. On the other hand, the degree of Undue Influence varies from scenario to situation.

However, coercion and Undue Influence are both impediments to the parties' free consent, which is a necessary component of a contract. Therefore, the contract can be cancelled at the party's request whose will is influenced by the other party.