Subhash Chandra Das Mushib vs. Ganga Prosad Das Mushib||Case Summary||AIR 1967 SC 878||Undue Influence

Undue Influence

FACTS

In Subhash Chandra Das Mushib vs. Ganga Prosad Das Mushib the father of the plaintiff, Prasanna Kumar, was owner of some lands in two villages, namely, Parbatipur and Lokepur, with an eight annas share in each. He left behind two sons, namely, Ganga Prasad, the plaintiff, and Balaram, the second defendant in the suit, along with a daughter Swarna lata and an only grandson Subhash Chandra, who was the first defendant in the suit. Plaintiff alleged that the will deed of his father transferring the whole property to defendant, plaintiff's nephew, was initiated by exercising undue influence on the donor. On the contrary, the deed specifies that the property gift was given due to natural love between the donor and defendant. Hence, the property should be entrusted to defendant. Additionally, subsequent to the transfer of the property to defendant, when some suit arose on the independent settlement deeds executed on the transferred property (prior to the death of the plaintiff's father, i.e. donor), donor categorically filed the statement that "he no longer has any interest in the property". However, High Court presumed the existence of undue influence that vitiated the deed on account of the relations between the donor and defendant being of grandparent and grandchild.

ISSUES

1. Is the gift from the grandfather to the first respondent valid and exists? If so, will the suit be able to proceed without the gift deed being set aside?

2. What was the nature of Balaram and Prasanna's relationship? Was Balaram in a position to exert unfair influence over Prasanna's choice? Did he employ such influence to gain an unfair upper hand in the dispute?

3. What was the character of the position Balaram held over his father? Was it a position of actual or apparent authority, or a fiduciary relationship? How was Prasanna's mental capacity impaired by his age and illness? Was his mental capacity temporarily or permanently impaired?

4. If one party is found to have been in a position of undue influence over the other, then the transaction will appear to be invalid. On which party will the burden rest to demonstrate that the contract was not entered into under undue influence? How will it be demonstrated?

RELEVANT LAWS

Section 16(3) of the Indian Contract Act: A contract is held to be induced by 'undue influence' where the relationship between the parties stands such that one of the parties is in a position to control the will of the other and does so in order to secure an unfair benefit over the other. Whether the relationship is such that the dominating party holds authority over the other or if the contract is made with a person of affected mental capacity due to various reasons.

JUDGEMENT

According to Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, the initial thing to establish in order to assert undue influence is the presence of such a relation between the parties that the one is capable of controlling the other's will. But a mere relationship of that kind will give no presumption of undue influence; for it will be further necessary to establish that the defendant had made use of such a relationship in order to secure an undue advantage over the plaintiff.

In Section 16(2)(a) of ICA the words "real or apparent authority" are to be interpreted as "relations of the parties such that one naturally relied upon the other for advice and the latter was able to overlord the will of the former in giving it". The Court noted that no presumption of undue influence exists in case of gift to a son, grandson, son-in-law, even if given during the illness or old age of the donor. Although, the relationship of solicitor-client, spiritual advisor and devotee, doctor-patient, parent and child are those where such a presumption exists.

The affirmation made by the donor that "he no longer has any interest in the property" indicates that he was conscious and agreed for the transfer of property to the defendant. Again, the aspect that donor actively participated in dealing with his property clearly establishes the fact that he was not subject to any undue influence.

Vinita Pathak