Bansraj Das v. Secretary of State (1939) — Coercion & Section 15 ICA

The Government attached joint family cattle and property to realize a fine imposed on the plaintiff’s son. To stop the sale, the father paid ₹300 and later sued to recover it. The High Court held the payment was made under coercion—an unlawful detention of property covered by Section 15 ICA—and allowed recovery with interest.

• Detaining someone’s property to force agreement = coercion.
• Payment under such pressure is recoverable with interest.

1. Was the ₹300 paid by the father a payment under coercion so that he could recover it?

• Section 15, ICA: Coercion includes unlawful detaining of property with intent to cause agreement or payment.
• Payment made to release wrongfully attached property can be recovered as it is not voluntary.

The High Court held that the payment was made under coercion—pressure created by attachment of family property. It reversed the lower courts and granted a decree for ₹300 with 6% p.a. interest from the date of suit until payment.

• Coercion includes unlawful detention/attachment of property to force agreement/payment (S.15 ICA).
• Payments made due to such pressure are not voluntary and are recoverable with interest.

The case protects families from forced payments when the State or others hold property as leverage. It clarifies that detention of property can amount to coercion, ensuring restitution where payment lacks free consent.

Mnemonic: “PAD” — Property • Attachment • Duress

1. Property: Whose assets are held up?
2. Attachment: Is it pressuring payment?
3. Duress: If yes, it’s coercion—recover the money.

Coercion (ICA S.15)

Forcing consent by illegal acts or by unlawfully holding property to make someone agree.

Attachment

Seizing property by legal process to secure payment of a fine/debt.

Restitution

Returning money/property obtained without free consent or by unfair means.