MUHAMMAD ZAFFAR KHAN vs Syed SHUMAILA ZAIDI Ss — 2025 SCMR 1961 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD ZAFFAR KHAN VS Syed SHUMAILA ZAIDI Ss. 2(g), 13 & 14---Contract procured under duress---Agreement executed while vendor being under police custody or detention---Legality and validity---Coercion, duress or undue influence, presumption of---Essentials of a valid contract stated---Offer, acceptance, consideration, legal capacity, and free consent---Contract procured under duress void---Effect---Benefits derived from void contract to be restored---Under the law a transaction or an agreement executed under custody or detention could potentially be considered as having been made under coercion, duress or undue influence, if the free consent is not given or the expressed will was the outcome of such circumstances---A person in custody or detention may be particularly vulnerable to coercion or duress as his freedom or liability to resist is severely limited---A person under the custody of the law enforcement agencies having control over the situation if enters into an agreement against best interest has an option to avoid it hence can be challenged in the court as voidable---A legally binding contract requires several elements i.e. an offer, acceptance of that offer, consideration, the parties having legal capacity to contract but not for an unlawful purpose, surely with a free consent (meeting of the minds or consensus ad idem)---If the consent is procured by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake, the consent is not free---An undue influence is a demonstration of controlling the will of the other party because of the prevailing situation of the main party---While coercion is an act of enforcing a will but the undue influence or duress are the consequence of coercion---A contract procured under duress by one party over the other is void and any benefit received there from must be restored and the loss be made good to such party---Duress in its more extended sense means that the degree of constraint or danger either actually inflicted or threatened which creates sufficient insecurity or an apprehension to overcome the mind and will of a person of ordinary fairness---It does not necessarily imply that the means used should be in themselves unlawful, but includes the use of lawful means in an unlawful manner or for an improper purpose---A duress by imprisonment, both lawful or unlawful, to force the party into executing a contract is illegal---In such circumstances, the contract would be deemed to be void under section 2(g) of the Contract Act, 1872 since it lacked consent as defined under section 13 of the said Act and free consent under section 14 of the Act.

MUHAMMAD ZAFFAR KHAN vs Syed SHUMAILA ZAIDI Ss — 2025 SCMR 1961 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR