Site navigation

In 2021, A threatens to take his own life and thereby compels B to agree to sell B's house. Applying…

In Chikkam Seshamma v. Chikkam Ammiraju, ILR 41 Mad 33, the Madras High Court treated a threat of suicide made to procure consent as coercion within section 15 of the Indian…

Choose your answer

In 2021, A threatens to take his own life and thereby compels B to agree to sell B's house. Applying the Madras High Court's interpretation of coercion in the decision reported at ILR 41 Mad 33, what is the effect on the contract?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer C

In Chikkam Seshamma v. Chikkam Ammiraju, ILR 41 Mad 33, the Madras High Court treated a threat of suicide made to procure consent as coercion within section 15 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, applying its then-operative Indian Penal Code reference. Under section 19, B, whose consent was caused by coercion, may avoid the contract.

Option feedback

Option A

Section 19 makes the contract voidable where coercion caused consent.

Option B

Section 19 gives the right to avoid the contract to the party whose consent was caused by coercion. A made the threat.

Option C

The majority in the Madras High Court treated a threat of suicide made to procure consent as coercion. B gave consent because of the threat and may avoid the contract under section 19.

Option D

Section 19 allows B to avoid the contract because the threat caused B's consent.

Practice for these exams

Related question papers

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic