Free Consent and Undue Influence — MCQs

All questions with answers and explanations

Read the full set here, or use the practice card above to test yourself one question at a time.

1. In Chikkam Ammiraju v. Chikkam Seshamma, a threat to commit suicide unless a release deed was executed was held to be:

   • Undue influence, not coercion
   • Coercion under Section 15 (correct answer)
   • Misrepresentation
   • Not a vitiating factor at all, since suicide is self-harm

   Explanation. The Madras High Court (1917) held that a threat of suicide amounted to coercion under Section 15, since the Court treated the threatened act as one forbidden by the Indian Penal Code. The release deed was voidable.

2. Which of the following is a key difference between coercion and undue influence?

   • Coercion requires a pre-existing relationship; undue influence does not
   • Undue influence requires a pre-existing relationship of dominance; coercion does not (correct answer)
   • Both require an unlawful act
   • Both are always caused by strangers

   Explanation. Undue influence, by its nature, requires a relationship in which one party can dominate the other's will; coercion can come from anyone, including a total stranger to the contract.

3. On the Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad approach to Section 16, once a relationship of dominance and an unconscionable transaction are shown, the burden of proof:

   • Remains with the party alleging undue influence
   • Shifts to the dominant party to prove no undue influence was used (correct answer)
   • Is dropped entirely
   • Shifts to the court itself

   Explanation. Raghunath Prasad sets a three-stage approach: dominance, then inducement by undue influence, then the burden of proof. Under Section 16(3), once dominance and an unconscionable bargain are shown, the dominant party must prove the transaction was not induced by undue influence. High interest alone, without proof of dominance, raises no presumption.

4. Under Section 16(2), a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate another's will in all of the following EXCEPT:

   • Real or apparent authority over the other (e.g., employer-employee)
   • A fiduciary relationship (e.g., trustee-beneficiary)
   • Contracting with a person whose capacity is affected by illness or distress
   • Two strangers negotiating a one-time commercial deal at arm's length (correct answer)

   Explanation. An arm's-length commercial negotiation between strangers, without any pre-existing relationship of authority, trust, or dependency, does not fall within Section 16(2)'s deeming categories.

5. A contract induced by undue influence is:

   • Void ab initio
   • Voidable at the option of the party influenced, under Section 19A (correct answer)
   • Automatically enforceable
   • Punishable as a criminal offence

   Explanation. Section 19A makes a contract voidable, not void, at the option of the party whose consent was caused by undue influence.

6. Under Section 16(3), where a dominant party's transaction appears unconscionable, the burden of proving that undue influence was not used lies on:

   • The weaker party
   • The person in a position to dominate (correct answer)
   • The court
   • The witness

   Explanation. Section 16(3) puts the burden on the person in a position to dominate the other's will.

7. A banker lends to A at an unusually high rate during stringency in the money market. This is:

   • Undue influence
   • An ordinary business transaction, not undue influence (correct answer)
   • Coercion
   • Fraud

   Explanation. Section 16, Illustration (d): an ordinary business transaction; the contract is not induced by undue influence.

8. Under Section 19A, a contract induced by undue influence, where the party has received a benefit, may be set aside:

   • Only absolutely
   • On such terms and conditions as the court thinks just (correct answer)
   • Only with the other party's consent
   • Never

   Explanation. Section 19A allows setting aside absolutely or, if a benefit was received, on just terms.

9. Under the Explanation to Section 15, for coercion it is immaterial whether the Indian Penal Code is in force:

   • In the place where the coercion is employed (correct answer)
   • In England
   • In the court's district
   • In the High Court

   Explanation. The Explanation says it is immaterial whether the Indian Penal Code is or is not in force in the place where coercion is employed.