Subhas Chandra Das Mushib v. Ganga Prosad Das Mushib

Facts

A person gifted a substantial part of his property to his grandson. After his death, other family members sought to set aside the gift on the ground that it had been procured by undue influence. The challengers relied largely on the family relationship and the donor's circumstances rather than on proof of actual domination.

Issues

• Whether a near relationship, by itself, gives rise to a presumption of undue influence under Section 16.
• What a plaintiff must establish, and at what stage the burden shifts to the donee, in a claim to set aside a gift for undue influence.

Arguments

The challengers argued that the close family relationship and the donor's situation were sufficient to presume undue influence and shift the burden to the donee. The donee argued that the relationship had not been shown to be fiduciary or one of domination, so no presumption arose and the burden remained on those impeaching the gift.

Held

The Supreme Court held that the law of undue influence is the same for a gift inter vivos as for a contract. The court must first consider whether the relations between donor and donee were such that the donee was in a position to dominate the donor's will, and whether that position was used to obtain an unfair advantage. Section 16(2) only illustrates relationships (such as solicitor-client, trustee-beneficiary, spiritual adviser-devotee, medical attendant-patient, parent-child) where the presumption may arise; mere kinship does not make a relationship fiduciary. As no position of domination had been established before the lower courts, no presumption could be drawn, and the gift could not be set aside merely because of relationship or the donor's age.

Ratio decidendi

To set aside a transaction for undue influence the plaintiff must first establish a position to dominate the will and its use for unfair advantage; relationship or old age alone raises no presumption and does not shift the burden under Section 16(3).

Significance

A leading Supreme Court restatement of the Section 16 framework, harmonising and applying Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad. It is repeatedly relied on (e.g., in M. Rangasamy v. Rengammal) to reject presumptions of undue influence drawn merely from family relationship, and is a standard authority on the burden of proof in gift-deed challenges.

Related