1. In this case the appellant brought a suit for rent at the rate of Rs. 110 odd against the respondent and obtained a decree. In execution of the decree he attached certain goods of the plaintiff and the latter, in order to get back his goods, paid Rs. 50 in cash and promised to pay the balance of the decree within a month. Within that time he brought the present suit for a declaration that the decree was fraudulent and not binding upon him.
2. The Court of Appeal below has come to the conclusion that the rent was not Rs. 110 odd, as was claimed by the appellant in the previous suit, but was Rs. 82 odd only. It is found that the promise to pay the decretal debt was clearly owing to undue influence' (by which the learned Subordinate Judge probably means 'undue pressure') and that the present plaintiff did not make the promise as a free agent.
3. The case thus comes under Section 72 of the Contrast Act [see illustration (b) of that section]. As pointed out by the Judicial Committee, the word 'coercion' referred to in that section is used in its general and ordinary sense, its meaning not being controlled by the definition of 'coercion' in Section 15 of the Act [See the case of Kanhaya Lal v. National Bank of India Limited (1)].
4. Upon the findings arrived at by the lower Appellate Court we do not think we can interfere in this case, The appeal must accordingly be dismissed with costs.
5. It is to be observed, however, that the fast that the decree in the rent-suit has been set aside by the Court below or the fast that the appeal to this Court is dismissed, does not mean the dismissal of the rent-suit.