Things Delivered by Mistake or Coercion — Recovery Under Section 72

Pay a bill twice by accident, and the recipient can't just shrug and keep the extra. Section 72 is the shortest, bluntest rule in this whole cluster: money or goods handed over by mistake or under coercion must go back — no questions about whose fault it was.

Paid/Delivered by Mistake

Fact or law, doesn't matter which → recipient must repay or return it.

Paid/Delivered Under Coercion

Broader than Section 15's definition → recipient must repay or return it.

The Problem This Topic Solves

Not every wrong payment involves a contract, a promise, or even any fault on the recipient's part. Someone can end up holding your money or goods purely by accident, or because you had no real choice but to hand them over. Section 72 doesn't ask why the payer made the mistake, or whether the recipient did anything wrong — it simply says the money or goods must go back.

What Does Section 72 Say?

Section 72 provides: "A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it."

Illustration (a): A and B jointly owe ₹100 to C. A alone pays the amount to C, and B, not knowing this fact, pays ₹100 over again to C. C is bound to repay the amount to B.

Notice what's absent here: no bad faith on C's part, no contract between B and C, no negligence anyone needs to prove. B paid because of a genuine mistake of fact — not knowing A had already paid — and that alone is enough to trigger Section 72.

Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law — Both Count

A recurring exam question is whether "mistake" in Section 72 covers only a mistake of fact, or a mistake of law too. The Supreme Court settled this decisively.

Sales Tax Officer, Banaras v. Kanhaiya Lal Mukundlal Saraf, AIR 1959 SC 135 — the respondent had paid sales tax to the department under a genuine, mistaken belief that the law required him to. The relevant taxing provision was later struck down as unconstitutional. When he sought a refund, the department argued Section 72 only covered payments made under a mistake of fact, not a mistaken understanding of the law. The Supreme Court rejected this distinction outright, holding that the word "mistake" in Section 72 is unqualified and covers both mistake of fact and mistake of law — the respondent was entitled to recover the tax paid.

"Coercion" Under Section 72 Is Broader Than Section 15

Unit II's "coercion" (Section 15) has a narrow, technical definition tied to committing or threatening an act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, or unlawfully detaining property. The "coercion" contemplated by Section 72 is understood far more broadly by courts — it covers situations of practical or commercial compulsion, where a person has no real choice but to pay an unlawful demand to protect their own goods or interests, even if the demand doesn't technically satisfy Section 15's definition.

Illustration (b): A railway company refuses to deliver up certain goods to the consignee, except upon the payment of an illegal charge for carriage. The consignee pays the sum charged in order to obtain the goods. He is entitled to recover so much of the charge as was illegally excessive.

The consignee in illustration (b) wasn't threatened with an IPC offence — the railway simply held his goods hostage to an unlawful charge. He paid because he had no practical alternative if he wanted his goods back, and that compulsion of circumstances is enough for Section 72, even though it might not independently satisfy Section 15's stricter test.

Basis	Coercion Under Section 15	Coercion Under Section 72
Definition	Committing/threatening an act forbidden by the IPC, or unlawful detaining of property, to induce an agreement	Any real practical compulsion forcing a payment, understood broadly by courts
Purpose	To decide whether consent to a contract was free (Unit II)	To decide whether money paid must be returned (Unit IV)
Scope	Narrower, technical, tied to the IPC	Broader — includes situations like illustration (b)

Must Know

Section 72 — money paid or goods delivered by mistake or under coercion must be repaid or returned
No fault, contract, or bad faith needs to be proved on the recipient's part
Sales Tax Officer, Banaras v. Kanhaiya Lal Mukundlal Saraf (AIR 1959 SC 135) — "mistake" under Section 72 includes both mistake of fact and mistake of law

Should Know

"Coercion" under Section 72 is broader than the technical Section 15 definition used for free consent — it includes practical/commercial compulsion, as in the railway illustration
Illustration (a) is the classic double-payment scenario examiners favour; illustration (b) is the classic illegal-charge scenario

A Practical Example

Priya's electricity bill is mistakenly generated twice by the utility's billing system for the same month. Not noticing the duplicate, she pays both bills online. Under Section 72, the utility company must refund the second, mistaken payment — it makes no difference that the mistake was the company's own billing error rather than Priya's, and no difference that there was never any dispute about the underlying contract for electricity supply.

Quick Revision Points

Section 72 = money paid or goods delivered by mistake or under coercion must be repaid or returned
Illustration (a): paying a jointly-owed debt twice by mistake — the second payment must be refunded
Illustration (b): paying an illegal charge to get goods released — the excess is recoverable
"Mistake" covers both fact and law (Kanhaiya Lal Mukundlal Saraf, AIR 1959 SC 135)
"Coercion" here is broader and more practical than Section 15's technical definition
No fault or bad faith on the recipient's part needs to be shown

5. Things Delivered by Mistake or Coercion — Recovery Under Section 72