"Undue influence" defined

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul v. Pratima Maity

   Supreme Court of India 09 Sep 2003 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable (2004) 9 SCC 468

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Judgment of Main Case order-4.pdf 2003-09-09 DATE VERIFIED (not same-date ROP order-5). CA 7133/2003. Raju/Pasayat. When a person in a fiduciary / active-confidence position takes a benefit from an old, illiterate, ailing executant, IEA 111 puts the burden of good faith on the dominant party; Contract Act s.16(3) is the corollary undue-influence rule. Do not remap CPC 100 (already filled).

   On this section: s.16(3) undue influence: where the relations are such that one party is in a position to dominate the will of the other and the transaction appears unconscionable, the burden shifts to the dominant party. Applies to an old, illiterate, ailing donor (Krishna Mohan Kul).

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Joseph Johan Peter Sandy vs Veronica Thomas Rajkumar

   Supreme Court of India 12 Mar 2013 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable AIR 2013 SC [Judgment Date: 2013-03-12]

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 has limited application and is attracted only in cases where it is pleaded and proved through fraud or mutual mistake of parties that the real intention of parties is not expressed in an instrument; rectification relief can be claimed only by parties to the instrument and by none else. The doctrine of undue influence requires satisfaction of a three-stage test: (1) relations between parties must be such that one is in position to dominate the will of the other; (2) the transaction must have been induced by such undue influence; and (3) if the transaction appears unconscionable, the burden of proving it was not induced by undue influence lies upon the person in position to dominate. When a document is propounded by a party in court, the burden lies on that party to prove the document, its authenticity, and that it was executed voluntarily; the other party is not required to prove it is forged. Admissibility of a document is distinct from its probative value; a document may be admissible yet lack probative value based on facts and circumstances, particularly when key witnesses are not examined and suspicious circumstances surround its execution. An unregistered agreement regarding property can be admissible in evidence but its probative value must be examined in light of evidence regarding its execution, the examination of attesting witnesses, identification of the scribe, and explanation of suspicious circumstances.

   On this section: Undue influence provision defines when a contract is induced by undue influence - where relations subsisting between parties are such that one is in position to dominate the will of other and uses that position to obtain unfair advantage. Court applied three-stage test: (1) are relations such that one can dominate other's will, (2) has that position been used to obtain unfair advantage, and (3) burden of proof considerations including whether transaction appears unconscionable.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.